Central Information Commission
Karamjit Singh Kamboj vs Delhi Police on 24 January, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000121
Dated 20.01.2017
Appellant : Shri Karamjit Singh Kamboj,
U-74, Top Floor, Tirupati Complex,
Shakarpur, Delhi-110 092.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, O/o the PIO,
Licensing Unit, 1st Floor,
Police Station, Defence Colony,
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 20.01.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.09.2015
First appeal filed on : 03.11.2015
FAA's order : 27.11.2015
Second Appeal filed on : 03.12.2015
ORDER
1. ShriKaramjit Singh Kamboj filed an application dated 02.09.2015under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),Licensing Unit, Delhi Police seeking information on five points regarding criteria for grant of License for running a Hostel.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 03.12.2015 before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has not provided any information and the First Appellate Authority had provided misleading information.
CIC/SB/A/2016/000121 Page 1 Hearing:
3. The appellantShri Karamjit Singh Kamboj was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Sameer Rawat, Inspector, Delhi Police was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted thatin response to the RTI application, point wise information was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 24.09.2015 and the appellant was informed that no license for running a Hostle in building No.U-113, Plot No.8, Khasra No.132, Upadhaya Block, Shakarpur has been issued by the Licensing Unit, Delhi Police. The respondent further submitted that the FAA vide order dated 27.11.2015 had upheld the response of the PIO.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records,observes that due information has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2016/000121 Page 2