Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000522
Name of Appellant : Sh. Ompal Dabas
Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, Security, Vinay Marg
Background
Sh. Ompal Dabas, the Appellant, had filed an application dated 10.02.2009,
under the RTI Act, seeking information on movable and immovable property of
Inspector Rajender Kumar, no. D3050. The queries in the RTI application are as
under:
“1. The movable and immovable property/asses at the time of his appointment
that is 09.07.1990.
2. What assets disclosed by him from 09.07.1990 to 31.03.2008.
3. That disclosed the property gained/purchased in the name of his wife,
children and parents.”
The Appellant, filed a first appeal dated 27.03.2009 before the First
Appellate Authority(FAA)/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Security alleging therein
that he had not received any response to his RTI application from the CPIO / Dy.
Commissioner of Police, Security. The FAA, decided the matter vide order dated
15.04.2009 by which the Appellant was requested to submit his original application
seeking information under the RTI Act. 2005, to the PIO/Security and the
PIO/Security was directed to provide information permissible under the RTI Act, on
receipt of the application. The Appellant, has, thereafter, preferred an appeal
before the Commission enclosing a copy of his RTI application dated 10.02.2009
which contains the initials of SI Ishwar Singh, No. 1119/D who had received the
application while issuing a receipt of Rs. 10/ to the Appellant.
2. The matter was heard on 9.03.2010.
3. Sh. Ompal Dabas, the Appellant was present for the hearing.
4. Sh. Ram Chander, S.I. RTI Cell represented the Respondent Public Authority.
During the hearing SI Ram Chander submits a written statement signed by
the CPIO / Dy. Commissioner of Police / Security according to which, on receipt of
CIC’s notice with the original application filed in the second appeal before the CIC,
the matter has been enquired into. The Respondent submit that the initials on the
receipt was shown to SI Ishwar Singh, who on checking his file, located the original
application dated 10.72.2009 lying in his file and sent it to the RTI Cell/Security on
24.4.2009. On receipt of the original application, notice under Section 11 of the RTI
Act was issued to Inspector Rajinder Kumar vide Dy. No.3050, being the 3rd party
information. After completing the necessary formalities a reply was sent to the
Appellant by the CPIO on 28.4.2009 under intimation to the FAA who directed the
PIO/Security to conduct an appropriate enquiry about the pending RTI application
and to take necessary action accordingly.
An appropriate enquiry was conducted by the APIO/Security and SI Ishwar
Singh was held responsible for keeping the RTI application dated 10.2.2009 till
24.4.2009 due however, to misunderstanding and without any malafide intention.
The Respondent submit that the Appellant had handed over the application to the
person who received the requisite fee who kept it in his file due to a
misunderstanding that it is a spare copy and thus the application could not reach
the RTI Cell/Security from where a reply was required to be given to the Appellant
within the stipulated time period. The PIO/Security called for an explanation of SI
Ishwar Singh, on receipt of which and after a hearing given to him, a written
warning was issued to SI Ishwar Singh vide Order No.13879881/HAP(PII) dated
8.10.2009.
In respect of the RTI application, the CPIO / Dy. Commissioner of Police,
security replied vide letter dated 28.04.2009 as under:
“1. Inspector Rajender Kumar, No.D3050 did not disclose about
moveable/immovable property/assets at the time of his appointment in Delhi
Police.
2&3 He has not given any intimation regarding acquisition/disposal of
moveable/immovable property/assets either in his name or in the name of
his family member. ”
DECISION:
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents on file, the
Commission finds that requisite reply has been provided to the Appellant. The
reasons for delay in replying to the RTI application by the CPIO have also been
explained and for which necessary action has been taken by the Respondent.
The matter is disposed of accordingly. Notice of the decision be given free
of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
9.3.2010