Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Krishan Kumar Chug vs Delhi Police on 19 May, 2026

                                   के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं      ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/137330


 KRISHAN KUMAR CHUG                                              ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम


 CPIO
 Delhi Police                                                 ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 31.05.2024             FA     : 21.07.2024           SA     : 20.11.2024

 CPIO : 04.07.2024            FAO : 20.08.2024              Hearing : 18.05.2026


Date of Decision: 19.05.2026

                                     CORAM
                Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
                                     ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2024, before the CPIO, Addl DCP, West District, Delhi Police, seeking information as under:

"With reference to the message received by me informing that Enquiry Report has been submitted to concerned Office against complaint No.50000049582400282 dated 03.04.2024, I seek following information under Right to Information Act

1. A copy of the complaint which was registered as Complaint No. 50000049582400282

2. Name of Enquiry Officer appointed to look into the Complaint Page 1 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/137330

3. Guidelines to the Enquiry Officer for processing the complaint

4. Any provision in the Guideline which allows Enquiry Officer to prepare Report without having views of the Complainant

5. If not, date on which the complainant was contacted for having his views

6. Pictures if any taken by the Enquiry Officer

7. Office to which the Report was submitted

8. A copy of the Report submitted by the EO

9. Names, designation and mobile number of officers who look into the Report

10. Guidelines which guide officers to accept or reject the officer

11. A copy of the note sheets containing views of officers on the Report submitted to them

12. Any details showing visits of officers to the site for having first hand information on the concerns raised by the complainant

13. Appointing Authority of Enquiry Officer

14. Disciplinary Authority of Enquiry Officer"

2. The CPIO replied to the RTI Application vide letter dated 04.07.2024, as under:

3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 21.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.08.2024 held as under:

"Keeping in view of present appeal, the undersigned carefully gone through the information sought by the appellant, information provided thereon, point raised in 1st appeal as well as concerned RTI file and reached to the decision that CPIO/West District had provided appropriate and available information and replied also within the stipulated period as prescribed under the RTI Act-2005. However, on receipt of 1 appeal, fresh comments from the concern have again been obtained through CPIO/West District but no new information could be ascertained from them except the information earlier provided. Further, the CPIO/West District obtained the complete set of S.O. No. A-17 which is revised of S.O. No. 104/2010, which can be provided to the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO/West District is hereby directed to provide the copies of revised S.O. to the appellant, free of cost within 07 working days, under intimation of this office. Thus, the other information/documents so provided by the CPIO/West District is found to be correct & justified. No more information in the matter is required to be provided by the undersigned, under provision of RTI Act, 2005."

4. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided a copy of the Standing Order No. A-17, bearing 30 pages, vide letter dated 21.08.2024. Subsequently, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 20.11.2024, seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) General Reliefs a. Identification of law violators who have been parking their vehicles in the public street behind my house b. Regular visits of Division Staff/Beat Staff in the public street (at least twice a day) to keep public street free from unauthorized parking and furnishing correct information on action taken to the Appellant there is sufficient space in DDA land for parking of vehicles and there could be seen vehicles which are parked in open land. If a public toilet is created (an issue I will take up separately for its being position at a distant place), some Page 3 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/137330 area can be allotted for parking of vehicles. The relief sought is in keeping with the provisions contained in Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 c. Removal of loudspeakers at two religious places in case those are not allowed to be installed and/or directing heads of religious places to keep voice emanating at permissible decibel level and a report of the action taken to be directed to be furnished to Hon'ble Commission d. Necessary directions be given to Chief Secretary of Delhi directing Delhi Police, working in tandem with Delhi Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board for creating a congenial environment which should be free from encroachment, air pollution, noise pollution to provide needed reliefs to this senior citizen and other law abiding citizens.

e. Taking up matter with Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority to construct a wall segregating public street on MCD land from the DDA land as Delhi Police and MCD have failed to keep public street free from encroachment and/or misuse of MCD land.

f. Presence of Dy. Commissioner of Police (West) in person along with Addl. Commissioner of Police (West) for appreciating for themselves for endorsing an incorrect, malafide and mischievous information.

ii. financial reliefs:

a. Refund of money which the Appellant was made to pay for incomplete order vide his order dated 4.7.2024 Rs.30/-

b. Penalty on CPIO @ Rs.250/- per day for such number of days till the complete information is furnished by the CPIO c. Compensating this Senior Citizen, as considered by Hon'ble Commission, by the public authority i.e. Delhi Police for making this Sr. Citizen suffer for around 10 years mentally and physically."

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person. On behalf of the Respondent, Inspector Ghanshyam Kishore, SHO Vikaspuri & Rep. of CPIO, along with Head Constable, Yogesh attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant referred to the enquiry report of the averred complaint and argued on the merits of the action taken by the Delhi Police.

7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the reply/information provided by the CPIO is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant through the instant Second Appeal has prayed for such 'general' reliefs as mentioned in para 4 above, that are not amenable to the provisions of the RTI Act. Similarly, the request for 'financial' relief is also not warranted as the Commission does not find any infirmity in the disposal of the instant RTI Application and the First Appeal by the Respondent office. Moreover, during the hearing, the Appellant merely argued about his dissatisfaction with the manner of disposal of his averred complaint and no argument or prayer was put forth in reference to the provisions of the RTI Act.

9. Given the facts of the instant case, it would be relevant to refer to certain judicial pronouncements as under:

(i) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v.

Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held inter-alia as under:

"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."

(ii) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017, wherein, inter-alia it was held as under:

"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."

(iii) Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013, observed inter-alia as under:

"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."

10. In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no scope for intervention in the matter.

11. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 19.05.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/137330 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)