Central Information Commission
Inderjeet Singh Mehta vs Delhi Police on 21 October, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2023/630973
Shri Inderjeet Singh Mehta निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Outer District
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 17.10.2024
Date of Decision : 17.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 28.04.2023
PIO replied on : 07.06.2023
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"I inderjeet singh mehta went to police station Police Station, Rani Bagh, Located at Deepali Chowk, Delhi where my wife and her relatives abused me then attacked on me. I was beaten by them. My life was saved by the Police Officials present there. All of the above mentioned incident was recorded in the CCTV Camera at the Police station Police Station Rani Bagh located at Deepali Chowk, Delhi. i want CCTV Footage of the camera installed at Police station Ranibgh, at Deepali, Delhi of date 25.04.2023 at the earliest as i want to proceed against the accused persons."
The CPIO, Delhi Police vide letter dated 07.06.2023 replied as under:-
"1. CCTV recording of police station contains various activities of police station as well as visits of many Page 1 complainants including females. In view of safety, security and secrecy of police personnel and visitors/complainants, the requisite information cannot be provided u/s 8(1)g & 8(1)j of RTI Act-2005."
Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed First Appeal and the FAA vide order dated 21.08.2023 as under :
"..Contentions put forth by the appellant as well as reports of the PIO/Outer District Delhi have been considered. After examination, it has been found that the SHO/Rani Bagh, the CCTV footage for 25.05.2023 is not available since the time period has been lapsed.."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 15.10.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Murari Lal, ACP, Mr. Vinod, HC, Mr. Ashok Singh, SI- participated in the hearing.
Respondent placed on record order of FAA dated 21.08.2023 during hearing.
The Respondent stated that the Complainant has sought footage CCTV recording of police station which contains various activities of police station as well as visits of many complainants including females and same is exempted from discloure under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. He further stated that the CCTV footage for 25.05.2023 is not available since the time period has been lapsed.
Decision:
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 2 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 3 "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.
Complaint 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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)