Central Information Commission
Shri Rakesh Sharma vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) Outer ... on 6 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00682 dated 19-6-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sharma
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) Outer District
Decision announced 6.11.'09
FACTS
By an application of 26-12-08 Shri Rakesh Sharma of Mayur Vihar, Delhi applied to the APIO, DCP Office, Outer Distt seeking the following information with regard to an FIR filed by him against the Doctors of Saroj Hospital:
"Kindly look into the matter and provide me the details and reason that why and on what grand police not taken any action against the culprits and delay the investigation report."
To this Shri Rakesh Sharma received a response dated 19-1-09 from PIO, Shri Atul Katiyar as follows:
"A case FIR No. 365/ 08 dated 14.6.08 u/s 304A/420/34IPC, PS/Prashant Vihar, Delhi was registered on the direction of the Hon'ble Court, Delhi on your complaint. The then SHO had endorsed on 14.6.2008and the case was registered on the same day. The writ petitions are pending in the Delhi High Court and next date is fixed for 29.1.2009. there is stay of arrest of the alleged Doctor Jaideep Bansal. However, he has represented before Medical Council of India. A letter has been written to the Chairman, Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Secotr-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-77 for opinion on the representation made by Dr. Jaideep Bansal and a reminder was also sent on 10.12.2008. The report is still awaited in this regard. Further investigation of the case is in progress and a report will be sent in the court on the date of hearing. You have been intimated about the progress of the case accordingly by the local police."
The remaining queries are disposed of with the words," As stated at above." Shri Rakesh Sharma has then moved an appeal on 2-2-09 before Shri Karnal Singh, JCP, Northern Range pleading as follows:
"Police has given me the reference of high court date (29.1.2009) but they are not bothered to act on my request and ignored to file the charge sheet/ investigation report in Rohini Court. Although on 10th September, 2008 at the time of last hearing 1 police informed in Rohini Court that they will submit the report within 15 days but till date they have not filed any report or Charge sheet against the culprits."
Appellate Authority Shri Karnal Singh, JCP has in his order of 26-2-09 ruled as below:
"The appellant has neither mentioned about any specific information, which has not been provided by PIO/ Outer nor mentioned about the reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the reply. He has only contended that police is delaying in submitting the charge sheet/ investigation report in Court. Since all the relevant information asked by the appellant in his RTI application has been provided to him. There are no grounds to entertain the appeal and it is accordingly disposed off. As regards the request of the appellant for taking necessary action into the matter, the same does not come under the purview of RTI Act keeping in view the decision of CIC dated 31.5.2006, in the appeal of Shri Pratap Singh against the Jt. CP/ Southern Range in which it is clearly mentioned that RTI Act can not be used to make a public authority to do certain things or take certain action. It can be invoked only for access to permissible information."
Shri Rakesh Sharma has then moved his second appeal before us in which his prayer is as follows:
"I am physically handicapped person and since Death of my son I am running pillar to post for justice. Now I still not understand why Police is harshing me when Medical Council of India is also accepted the Negligence in treatment and all the evidences and facts are proved that the all the treating Doctors are also responsible for Death of my son.
Now I request your good self to kindly look into the matter and take the necessary action against Delhi Police for not filed the charge sheet/ investigation report in Rohini Court."
Subsequently, through letter of 31-7-09 Shri Rakesh Sharma has pleaded as below:
"Police is still protecting all Doctors of private Saroj Hospital and not doing any investigation/ action against all the Doctors/ culprits. Police is not bothered to give the reply of queries/ information.
Now I once again request to kindly call them for hearing at the earliest because more then one year was passed but police is 2 failing to file the charge sheet/ investigation report in Rohini Court."
In a detailed letter of response to our appeal notice dt. 6-10-09 Shri B.K. Singh, present PIO, Addl. DCP, Outer Distt. in his letter of 7-10-09 has reiterated the orders of first appellate authority and concludes as follows:
"Since all the point wise requisite information/ reply, in seriatim ,was provided to the appellant, permissible under RTI Act, 2005, which was available in this office at that time, there was no violation of Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant has mentioned in his present appeal that police has still not taken any action and protecting all the accused and requested to kindly look into the matter and do the justice with him. Such type of request does not come under the purview of RTI Act, 2005 as the Central Information Commission, in its decision dated 31.5.2006, on the appeal of Shri Pratap Singh Gandas against the Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, New Delhi, has held that the RTI Act can not be used to make a public authority to do certain things or take certain action. It can be invoked only for access to permissible information. However, after completion of investigation of case FIR No. 365/08 dated 14.6.08 u/s 304-A/420/34IPC, P. S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi the charge sheet has been filed in the court of Shri Vishal Singh, M. M. Rohini Courts on 19.8.2008."
The appeal was heard on 6-11-2009. The following are present. Appellant Shri Rakesh Sharma, Respondents Shri Brajesh Kr. Singh, Addl. DCP/Outer Distt. Shri Sudhir Kumar, SHO, Prashant Vihar.
Shri Sunil Kumar, SI, ICPP, Rohini Courts. Shri Madan Lal, SI, Outer Distt.
Shri Sukhbir Singh, ACP, Prashant Vihar Appellant Shri Rakesh Sharma submitted that all he wanted to know was why there has been such a delay in filing the charge sheet on the basis of FIR submitted by him. He submitted that the response of 19-1-09 of PIO Shri Atul Katiyar has not specified the reasons.
DECISION NOTICE Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act 2005 reads as follows:
3(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority 1 and includes the right to--
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii)taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
In this case such information as is held by the PIO, Outer District, access to which is what constitutes the 'right to information', as underlined by us above, has, indeed been provided to appellant Shri Rakesh Sharma in the very first instance. As repeatedly held both by the PIO & Appellate Authority, there is no further information held by them which they might provide. The decision of the Appellate Authority is, therefore, upheld and the appeal is dismissed. If appellant considers this an unsatisfactory response, in that it does not specify the reasons sought, which is unexplained delay in filing charge sheet, it amounts to a complaint against the disposal of the FIR, regarding which appellant Shri Rakesh Sharma may petition the appropriate court which in this case is the court of Shri Vishal Singh, MM, Rohini Court, Delhi before whom we have been informed by the PIO in his letter of 7-10- 2009 that the charge sheet has now been filed. .
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 6-11-2009 1 Underlined by us 4 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 6-11-2009 5