Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.Anil Datt Sharma vs Delhi Police on 8 November, 2012

                       Central Information Commission
            Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, 
                    Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
                   Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

                                              Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/0001298
                                                            Dated: 08.11.2012

Name of Appellant                :      Shri Anil Datt Sharma

Name of Respondent               :      Delhi Police, North East District

Date of Hearing                  :      01.11.2012

                                     ORDER

Shri Anil Datt Sharma, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 10.11.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, South East District for providing unsatisfactory information in response to his RTI-application dated 25.5.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 01.11.2012. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri M.L. Sharma, ACP and Shri Surinder Singh, ASI.

2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 25.5.2011 sought information on ten queries regarding unauthorized construction at Plot No. 2859, Ram Nagar, Basement at 2837 Ramnagar, 3014 and 3015 Ram Nagar and a plot in front of 3015 Ramnagar, 4 Plot Nos. 2230, 2231, 2233, Ram Nagar, Abutting plot of 2062 Ram Nagar. The CPIO vide his letter No. 2846/RTI Cell/NED dated 18.6.2011 provided requisite information, as per reply received from SHO/M.S. Park/NED. The CPIO also provided photocopies of forms sent to the MCD to the appellant.

3. During the hearing the appellant filed his written submissions stating that the appellant is entitled to get the information in term of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The name of the SHO and the local police has not been provided at Point No. 1, at Point No. 2 the CPIO has not provided details and particulars of the report forwarded to the land owning agencies. The CPIO has not informed the current status of these plots and has not provided photographs which were sent to the MCD. The contention of the CPIO is that the matter pertains to the MCD whereas this matter pertains to the Police and MCD both. The obligatory functions of police is to communicate reporting of unauthorized construction on weekly basis so it is wrong to say that the status of unauthorized construction is not available in the records of the police. The Police have not informed the exact numbers of plots for which the police have sent construction report to MCD in the past 12 months while it is available in the record of police. The documents sought at Point No. 10 of the RTI application has not been provided by the CPIO.

4. The respondent during the hearing submit that the CPIO has provided requisite information to the appellant vide letter dated 18.6.2011. On perusal of record of RTI as well as Appeal Cell/NED, it has been found that appellant's first appeal has not been received in the office so far. After filing second appeal by the appellant before the Commission, the CPIO has vide letter No. 7132/RTI Cell/North East District dated 26.10.2012 provided further point-wise information as follows: "(1) As regard query raised about Point No. 3 of RTI application, the information about construction at property mentioned at Sl. No. 1, 3 and 5 of his RTI application has already been sent to the MCD. The photocopy of letter sent to the MCD along with photographs were provided to the appellant; (2) As regard query raised about Point No. 5 of RTI application, as per report of SHO/MS Park, no fresh construction was going on in other plots nearby the said property. Hence a nil report has already been sent in the reply of his RTI application; (3) As regard query raised about point No. 7 of the RTI application, there is no law for filling up the proforma, the available information is being filled-up at the time of filling up the said proforma. The purpose of the proforma is to inform the 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001298 concerned Land Owning Agency. for further necessary action; (4) As regard query raised about point No. 8 of the RTI application, the appellant has already been informed that the necessary information to the MCD has been sent and photocopy of the letter has also been provided; (5) As regard query raised about point No. 4 of the properties mentioned in RTI application, the appellant has already been informed that there is no fresh construction. Beside this his RTI application has also been transferred to the PIO/MCD for further necessary action; and (6) As regard query raised about photographs of construction, the appellant has already been informed that he may deposit Rs. 6/- and collect the same from the office. Moreover, the photocopy of the same were provided to the appellant". The respondent further submit that whenever construction starts, they inform the land owning agency. It is the duty of the land owning agency (MCD) to examine whether the construction is unauthorized.

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission finds that information requested at Point No. 1 of the RTI application i.e. the name of SHO and staff has not been provided. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide name of the SHO and staff of PS M.S. Park to the appellant. In response to Point No. 5 the CPIO has replied as 'Nil'. The CPIO is directed to go through the records once again and provide requisite information to the appellant. The reply at Point No. 8 of the RTI application, the CPIO has not provided categorical reply. The CPIO is directed to provide categorical reply as per record. As regards the query raised about photographs of construction, the appellant has already been informed by the CPIO to deposit Rs. 6/- and collect the same from the office of the CPIO. The appellant may deposit the fees and take the documents. The directions of the Commission are to be complied with by the CPIO within two weeks of receipt of this order. For the queries related to the MCD the appellant is advised to file a fresh second appeal before the Commission, as the MCD is a separate public authority.

The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission with the above directions/observations.

(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:

Shri Anil Datt Sharma, D-129, New Seelampur, Delhi-110053.

The Addl. DCP & CPIO, Delhi Police, North East District, Seelampur, Delhi10053.

The DCP & First Appellate Authority, Delhi Police, North East District, Seelampur, Delhi-10053.