Central Information Commission
Inder Singh vs Delhi Police on 18 February, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/652449
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/660310
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/660878
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/601449
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/653032
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/653038
Shri Inder Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Sh. Ravinder Kumar- ACP/PCR;
Sh. Piyush Jain - ACP/Patel Nagar, Central
District; Sh. Sanjeev Kumar - ASO/Karol Bagh;
Sh. Radha Krishnan - SI; Sh. Kamal Krishnan-
ASI; Smt. Maya Rawat - W(ASI)
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2021
Date of Decision : 18.02.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on appeal dated/received
on
652449 23.04.2019 24.05.2019 09.06.2019 25.06.2019 Nil
660310 13.10.2019 13.11.2019 18.11.2019 04.12.2019 19.12.2019
660878 16.10.2019 19.11.2019 19.11.2019 09.12.2019 Nil
601449 16.10.2019 19.11.2019 19.11.2019 09.12.2019 14.01.2020
653032 07.03.2018 06.04.2018 10.04.2018 10.05.2018 Nil
653038 16.06.2017 18.07.2017 08.08.2017 07.09.2017 Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
Page 1 of 9(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/652449 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.04.2019 seeking certified copy of complaint vide DD no. 12 A dated 03.12.2017filed in PS Anand Parbat and name of Inquiry Officer & certified copy of the statement.
The CPIO, Delhi Police, Central District vide letter dated 24.05.2019 furnished the copy of available information regarding complaint vide DD No. 12A dated 03.12.2017 and informed that enquiry was conducted by HC Pramod, PS Anand Parbat, enclosing a copy of the enquiry report.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.06.2019. The FAA, Delhi Police, Central District vide order dated 25.06.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Written submissions dated 11.02.2021 has been received from PIO-Central District-Sh. Rohit Meena providing a combined reply to four of the appeals reiterating the above facts. In so far as the abovementioned appeal is concerned, it has been submitted by the Respondent that report dated 21.05.2019 had been provided to the Appellant with the PIO's reply, which reveals that the Appellant had complained against BSES officials had added a sum of Rs. 24,000/- with his father Ghasi Ram's bill and threatened to disconnect his electricity on non- payment of the bill. The enquiry report dated 21.05.2019 revealed that on investigation, the complaint was found baseless, and the electricity bill was found to be in terms of regulations specified in 49(ii) of the DERC Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation 2007.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and Appellant stated that the enquiry report provided by the Respondent is not satisfactory and he challenges the veracity of facts stated therein. Respondent contended that report as available on records, had been provided to the Appellant.
Decision Upon hearing both parties and examining relevant records of the case, it is noted that information had been provided by the Respondent, from available official records and well within mandated time, in terms of the RTI Act. The Appellant has contended that he is not satisfied with the reply because he believes that the information is not accurate and correct, though he has not been able to substantiate his claim.
As is the settled position of law, the RTI Act is not designed to address inter se disputes between parties nor for grievance redressal or for drawing inference Page 2 of 9 from the information. Emphasis is laid on the decision dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank &Ors., wherein the above issue was discussed and it was held:
"...6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. In the light of the above facts, no further direction is deemed essential under RTI Act in this case.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/660310 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2019 seeking certified copy of complete files in respect of DD no. 18A dated 14.08.2017, PGMS 2018104553, PGMS 2018152666 and PGMS 2019047996.
The CPIO, Delhi Police, Central District vide letter dated 13.11.2019 informed the Appellant that he may obtain the copy of requisite available information from the office after depositing the required documentary fee of 10/- (5 pages @ 2/- per page) under RTI Act, 2005 on any working day (Monday to Friday between 11.00 to 01.00 PM) alongwith ID proof (within 30 days of receipt of the reply).
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2019. The FAA, Delhi Police, Central District vide order dated 04.12.2019 disposed of the First Appeal informing that the requisite copies of documents (5 pages) mentioned in RTI reply were enclosed with the FAA's order and sent to the Appellant, free of cost. A copy of the status report of his complaints on the grievance portal has also been placed on record, which indicates that information about the complaints is available with the Appellant.
Still aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Written submissions dated 11.02.2021 has been received from PIO-Central District-Sh. Rohit Meena providing a combined reply to four of the appeals reiterating the above facts. In so far as the abovementioned appeal is concerned, it has been submitted by the Respondent that complete status report with respect to the complaints filed by the Appellant were available with him, wherein Page 3 of 9 he was apprised that enquiry was conducted on his complaints through ACP, Patel Nagar and its was found that repair work was carried out at the property in question, with permission of MCD and the property belong to MCD. Thus no police action was required.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and Appellant stated that the enquiry report provided by the Respondent is not satisfactory and he challenges the veracity of facts stated therein. Respondent contended that report as available on records, had been provided to the Appellant.
Decision Upon hearing both parties and examining relevant records of the case, it is noted that information had been provided by the Respondent, from available official records and well within mandated time, in terms of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought to challenge the veracity or correctness of the information supplied, though he has not been able to substantiate the cause thereof.
The RTI Act was devised to ensure dissemination of information from public records, and cannot adjudicate inter se disputes between parties nor for grievance redressal or drawing inference from the information. In this regard emphasis is laid on the decision dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank &Ors., wherein the above issue was discussed and it was held thus:
"...6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.
Considering that information as available with the Respondents, had been duly furnished to the Appellant well within time, a baseless claim of the Appellant cannot be entertained in this case.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/660878 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2019 seeking certified copies of documents in respect of complaint vide DD no. 30 dated 23.11.2018.Page 4 of 9
The CPIO, Delhi Police, Central District vide letter dated 19.11.2019 informed the Appellant that he may obtain copy of requisite available information from the office after depositing the required documentary fee of 8/- (4 pages @ 2/- per page) under RTI Act, 2005 on any working day (Monday to Friday between 11.00 to 01.00 PM) alongwith ID proof (within 30 days of receipt of the reply).
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2019. The FAA, Delhi Police, Central District vide order dated 09.12.2019 disposed of the First Appeal informing that the requisite copies of documents (5 pages) mentioned in RTI reply were being provided to the Appellant, free of cost.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Written submissions dated 11.02.2021 has been received from PIO-Central District-Sh. Rohit Meena providing a combined reply to four of the appeals reiterating the above facts. It is noted that information as available on record, had been duly supplied by the FAA along with his order dated 09.12.2019. The Enquiry report so furnished reveals that the repair work complained by the Appellant, was carried out at the property in question, with permission of MCD and the matter belongs to MCD. Thus no police action was required.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and Appellant stated that the enquiry report provided by the Respondent is not satisfactory and he challenges the veracity of facts stated therein. Respondent contended that report as available on records, had been provided to the Appellant.
Decision Upon hearing both parties and examining relevant records of the case, it is noted that information had been provided by the Respondent, from available official records and well within mandated time, in terms of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought to challenge the veracity or correctness of the information supplied, though he has not been able to substantiate the cause thereof.
The RTI Act mandates disclosure of information from public records, but it cannot entail adjudication of inter se disputes between parties nor is it designed for grievance redressal or drawing inference from the information provided by Respondent. In this regard emphasis is laid on the decision dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Hansi Rawat & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank & Ors., wherein the above issue was discussed and it was held thus:Page 5 of 9
"...6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.
Considering that information as available with the Respondents had been duly furnished to the Appellant well within time, a baseless claim of the Appellant cannot be entertained in this case.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/601449 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2019 seeking certified copies of documents in respect of complaint vide CDR/895/SHO Anand Parbat dated 14.08.2017.
The CPIO, Delhi Police, Central District vide letter dated 19.11.2019 informed the Appellant that he may obtain the copy of requisite available information from the office after depositing the required documentary fee of 10/- (5 pages @ 2/- per page) under RTI Act, 2005 on any working day (Monday to Friday between 11.00 to 01.00 PM) alongwith ID proof (within 30 days of receipt of the reply).
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2019. The FAA, Delhi Police, Central District vide order dated 09.12.2019 disposed of the First Appeal informing that the requisite copies of documents (5 pages) mentioned in RTI reply was being provided to the Appellant, free of cost.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Written submissions dated 11.02.2021 has been received from PIO-Central District-Sh. Rohit Meena providing a combined reply to four of the appeals reiterating the above facts.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present and Appellant states that the enquiry report provided by the Respondent is not satisfactory. Respondent contended that report as available on records, had been provided to the Appellant, free of cost, by the orders passed by the FAA.Page 6 of 9
Decision Perusal of records of the case reveal that enquiry had been duly conducted against ASI S K Srivastava on the complaint of the Appellant, wherein the allegations could not be proved. Hence the complaint was disposed off.
It is noted that information as available on records, had been provided to the Appellant. Any challenge to the enquiry conducted by the Respondent shall lie before the appropriate legal forum. Since this is not a case where information has been denied or concealed, no further adjudication is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
(5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/653032 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.03.2018 seeking certified copy of complaint through 3 PCR calls (via phone No. 9711xxxxxx05) on 07.03.2018 and action taken thereon.
The PIO & Dy. Commissioner of Police, Police Control Room vide letter dated 06.04.2018 informed that three calls were received from the specific telephone number and the Appellant could collect the copies of PCR call forms, from RTI Cell/PCR, Barrack depositing the prescribed fee of Rs. 2/- per page (Total Rs. 10/-) on any working day during office hours (along with I.D. proof).
Dissatisfied with the demand of documentary fees on the RTI application, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2018. The FAA& Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District vide order dated 10.05.2018 disposed of the First Appeal informing that reply provided by the PIO/Central District is found correct as PIO/ Central District has not demanded any kind of fees while replying to the Appellant's RTI application.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Written submissions dated 11.02.2021 has been received from PIO-Addl. CP, PCR-Sh. Sandeep Byala reiterating the brief facts of the case. In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present and Appellant states that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent. Respondent contended that call forms as available on records, had been offered to the Appellant to be obtained on deposit of the requisite photocopy charges.
Decision Considering the consistent directions by the FAA in the above cases, of providing information free of cost to the Appellant, the Commission directs the Respondent Page 7 of 9 to provide information free of cost even in this case, in view of the BPL card submitted by the Appellant. Information in the form of copies of PCR Call forms should be sent to the Appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report should be submitted by the Respondent, by 31.03.2021.
(6) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/653038 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.06.2017 seeking information on following 03 points:-
The PIO, Central District vide letter dated 18.07.2017 in response to query 1 stated that the Appellant's complaint was marked to Assistant Sub Inspector, PS Brahmswaroop, posted at PS Anand Parbat for action taken. In response to query 2, CPIO furnished copy of the action taken report on Appellant's complaint. Further, in response to query 3, as the information pertained to the MCD, therefore, the Appellant's application was transferred to Dy. Commissioner/PIO, Karol Bagh Zone.
Dissatisfied with the reply of PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.08.2017. The FAA & Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District vide order dated 07.09.2017 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Written submissions dated 11.02.2021 has been received from PIO-Central District-Sh. Rohit Meena reiterating the above facts of the case.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties attended the hearing through video conference and the Appellant pointed out that PIO had provided only the covering page of the Enquiry report, while annexures with the report had not been furnished. Respondent denied the contention of the Appellant and pointed out that Page 8 of 9 complete enquiry report about the unauthorised construction, regarding which the Appellant had complained, had been provided to him. It has been pointed out by the Respondent that the matter pertains to MCD and no police action as found necessary in the matter. Representative from the MCD is also present for hearing and submitted that the records relevant to the case are voluminous, which can be provided to the Appellant for inspection.
In the six appeals mentioned above, the Appellant has raised one consistent concern, that the First Appeals have been adjudicated without hearing the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon hearing the contentions of the parties and perusal of records, it is noted that the averment of the Appellant about First Appeals being adjudicated on the basis of record should be revisited and an endeavour should be made by FAAs to hold a fair hearing of both parties. Such a practice shall provide an opportunity to the Appellants to articulate their case better and is likely to reduce the scope and necessity of filing of a Second Appeal in most cases.
In so far as the instant appeal is concerned, it is noted that Delhi Police has claimed that all information has been provided by them already. However, in the interest of justice, it is hereby directed that the PIO-Central District shall ensure that another copy of a complete set of relevant documents annexed with the enquiry report should be made available to the Appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order. A copy of the compliance report with proof of service shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission, by 31.03.2021, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated as per law. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar - ASO/Karol Bagh present for the hearing is directed to provide inspection of all relevant records of this case to the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time .
The above appeals are thus disposed off with these directions.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 9 of 9