Central Information Commission
J. S. Bhattacharjee vs Delhi Police on 29 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2023/118904
Shri J. S. BHATTACHARJEE निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2024
Date of Decision : 27.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.03.2022
PIO replied on : 28.03.2022
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 27.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2022 seeking information status and action taken report on email sent by the appellant along with the name and details of the officials with whom the email is pending for reply/action.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, RTI, PHQ vide letter dated 28.03.2022 transferred the instant RTI Application to PIOs of all district and crime branch, Delhi police.
PIO, Addl. Dy. CP, South District vide letter dated 08.04.2022 replied as under:-
As per queries, matter does not relate to this District.
PIO, Dy. CP, PHQ-II furnished reply dated 11.04.2022 as under :
1. Your e-mail dated 16.10.2021 was received in the office of CP, Delhi and sent to Jt.CP/Northern Range vide by. No. 67988/E-
mail/CP office dated 18.10.2021 for necessary action. Further, it was sent to DCP/North-West District by Jt.CP/Northern Range, Page 1 Delhi vide his office letter No. 3647/C/NR dated 01.11.2021 for taking necessary action. Hence, further information i.e. action taken report on your e-mail will be provided to you by PIO/North- West District, where your RTI application has already transferred, under RTI Act-2005.
2 and 3 PIO/North-West District, Delhi will reply.
4. PIOS/All Districts & Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Delhi/New Delhi.
The CPIO, Addl. Dy. CP, North East District vide letter dated 22.04.2022 replied as under:-
"1. It does not relate to this district.
2. As mentioned at point No. 1 above.
3. As mentioned at point No. 1 above.
4. The record of all type of complaints upto 2015 has been destroyed vide No. 16579-16678/HAR/NED, dated 24.06.2021 (copy enclosed 01 PP). As regad rest information, total 156 complaints of SCSC have been received in this district. Out of which 145 complaints have been disposed off."
PIO, Addl. Dy. CP, South East District vide letter dated 26.04.2022 replied as under:
1 to 4. In this connection, it is mentioned that the requisite information does not pertain to this District. However, the requisite information has already been provided to you by PIO/PHQ., New Delhi vide No. 1116/2022/2304- 320/[RTI]/PHQ, dated 11.04.2022. XXIV/29/Spl/ID-
5. In this connection, it is mentioned that the report received from Sr. Citizen Cell of this District (Principle supplier of information sought) is attached herewith (02 Pages).
PIO, Addl. Dy. CP, South East District vide letter dated 28.07.2022 replied as under:-
In this connection, it is mentioned that the requisite information has already been provided to you vide this office letter No. 627/22/3458/RTI Cell/Sout East District, New Delhi, dated 26.04.2022. However, the record 31.12.2014 of Senior Citizen Cell of this District has already been destroy vide order No. 1451-
1540/HAR/SED. New Delhi, dated 01.02.2019. Copy the said Order is attached herewith which is self explanatory.
APIO, Dwarka District furnished reply dated 22.04.2022 as under:
1 and 3: Requisite information does not related to this district which has already been provided to you by PIO/PHQ vide letter No. as referred above.
Page 2 4: In this regard, the Dwarka District start functioning in the year 2017 and since then requisite information us as under :
Assistant CP, North District furnished reply dated 27.04.2022 as under:
1 to 3. The reply already provided to you by PHQ.
4.The scrutinizing of record is too lengthy process. Hence, you are allowed to inspect the desired record of all Police Stations of North District i.e. Civil Lines, Maurice Nagar, Roop Nagar, Burari, Timarpur, Wazirabad, Sarai Rohilla, Gulabi Bagh, Kotwali, Lahori Gate, Kashmere Gate, Sadar Bazar, Bara Hindu Rao, Subzi Mandi, on any working day within 25 days from the receipt of this letter between 11.00 AM to 5.00 PM as per RTI Act - 2005.
PIO, Addl. Dy. CP, New Delhi District vide letter dated 28.04.2022 replied as under 1to3: Does not relate to this District. Already replied by PIO/PHQ, Delhi vide letter No.XXIV/29/Spl/ID-1116/2022/12304-320/RTI/PHQ, Delhi dated 11.04.2022.
4: In this regard a report of Senior Citizens Cell/NDD is enclosed herewith which is self explanatory.
PIO, Addl. Dy. CP, South District vide letter dated 10.05.2022 replied as under:
1to 3 : The matter does not relate to this District. 4: ln his regard, it is to inform you that Complaint record of Senior Citizen Cell, South District, New Delhi for the period upto 2016 has been destroyed vide order No. 12421- 510/HAR /SD dared 07. 1 0.2021(copy enclosed). Th€ detail of complains for the period 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2021 is asunder:
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 13.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Dy. CP, PHQ-II and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated Nil has been received from the CPIO, Addl. Dy. CP, Dwarka District and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 13.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Addl. Dy. CP, South District and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 17.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Addl. Dy. CP-I, New Delhi District and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Page 3 Written submission dated 20.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Addl. Dy. CP, South East District and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 22.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Rohini District and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 23.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Addl. Dy. CP-I, North District and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Atul Kalia, APIO/PHQ, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, RTI Cell/PHQ, Mr. P. Sharma, SI, RTI Cell/PHQ, Mr. Amit Kumar, HC, RTI Cell/OND, Mr. Sandeep Rana, HC, RTI Cell/Rohini, Mr. Ahok Kumar, I/c RTI/South District, Ms. Shakuntala, SI. I/c RTI/New Delhi District. Ms. Sanghmitra, ACP, South-west District, Mr. Manoj, HC, RTI Cell /South West District, Mr. Yogesh, RTI Cell/West District, Mr. Omveer Singh, HC, RTI Cell, East District, Mr. Ahok Kumar, ACP/DCP office, North East District, Mr. Mohinder Singh, APIO, East District, Mr. Jitender SI, Mr. Vijay, ASI, Mr. Mandeep Singh, Inspector, North District, Mr. Rajendra Pal, Inspector, Dwarka District, Mr. Surinder Singh, SI, RTI Cell, Mr. Chander Shekhar, ASI, RTI Cell, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, SI, RTI Cell/SED, Mr. Brijesh, HC, RTI Cell/SED, Mr. Neeraj Inspector, West District, Mr. Rajbir Singh, SI< West District, Mr. Roshan Lal. ASI, Outer District- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Complainant. They further stated that the complaint of the Complainant was related to non- issuance of loan from PNB. They further apprised the Commission that the grievance of the Complainant has been resolved.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Page 4 Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx Page 5 "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)