CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01247 dated 7.9.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Rakesh Agarwal
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (PHQ)
Facts
:
By an application of 28.12.06 Shri Rakesh Agarwal of Patparganj, Delhi
applied to the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Gen. Admn) PHQ seeking the
following information:
“For every police post and police beat box in Delhi, please provide
me the following information:-
1. Reference number of the post/ beat box, if any
2. Exact location and address of the post/ beat box
3. Land area covered by the beat box
4. Which poli8ce station has jurisdiction over the post/ beat box
5. What is the sanctioned strength of police personnel at this post/
beat box
6. Whether constructed on public land, e.g. footpath
7. Who constructed it
8. Month and year of construction
9. total cost of construction incurred by you
10. Whether the land is encroached upon
11. Was requisite permission obtained from MCD/DDA/NDMC or any
other civic authority
12. If yes, please provide copy of the letter granting such a permission
13. Please provide copy of the sanctioned plan
1
14. Name, designation and present official address of the person
responsible for (a) taking the decision to construct, (b)j sanctioning
the money for the construction
15. Is the post/ beat box supplied with electricity?
16. If yes, please provide me with the K Number of the electricity
connection
17. Is there any kind of advertisement displayed on the post/ beat box
18. If yes, is advertising tax paid to civic authorities
19. If you discover any illegality is the construction/ operation of the
post/ beat box, will you demolish it or take action against erring
officials? Please provide comprehensive details
20. Will you register an FIR against the officials responsible for illegal
encroachment construction or sanctioning of money for the
construction?
21. I would like to inspect ten such posts/ beat box. Kindly advise me
the date and time and venue from where we can set off for
inspection. I would be accompanied by associates. I will prepare
an inspection report at the end of inspection to which both parties
will put their signatures after adding their comments.”
To this he received a response from Addl. Commr. of Police (Gen. Admn)
Shri Deepender Pathak, PIO, PHQ dated 24.1.07 as follows:
“I am to intimate that beat boxes are not permanent arrangements.
Depending on the ground situations, we keep shifting them; some
of them are not manned permanently. For example during
important functions like Ram Lila etc., beat boxes are put upon the
route and near the grounds. In other areas they are put up
according to crime situation, which is variable. They are temporary
structures only and hence no definite information can be provided.”
After considerable correspondence and a hearing in this Commission Shri
Agarwal moved his first appeal on 28.5.2007 before Jt. Commr. of Police, HQs
Delhi Police in which he has specifically objected to the information provided
against point Nos. 2, 3, 5-8, 11-13 and 15-17 and also pleaded as follows:
2
“In section of ten posts/ beat boxes was requested. However, the
PIO has chosen to remain silent and has not provided this
information.”
In response, by an order of 29.6.07 Shri Satish Chandra JCP HQs has
allowed the appeal in the following words:
“On receipt of this appeal, I have gone through the application as
well as reply given by PIO/ PHQ and found that the information
supplied by PIO/ PHQ is on the basis of reports received from all
Districts’ DCPs. Since CIC has already passed directions, PIO/
PHQ is hereby directed to provide information as far as possible
after obtaining a fresh report from all concerned within 30 days from
the issue of this order.1The appeal is, therefore, disposed off (sic) with the above
directives.”
In compliance PIO Shri Deepender Pathak through his letter of 30.7.07 has
provided detailed information comprised of 182 pages in two proformae for
Central Distt., New Delhi Distt., North Distt., North West Distt., North East Distt,
East Distt., South Distt., West Distt. & South West Distt. covering the following:
Reference No number of the post/ beat box if any.
Exact location and address of the post/ beat box
Land area Covered by the beat box
Which police station has jurisdiction over the post/
beat box
What is the sanctioned strength of police personnel
this post/ beat box.
Whether construction on public land.
Who construction it.
Month and year of construction.
Total cost of construction incurred.
Was requisite permission obtain from
MCD/DD/NDMC or any other civic agency
If yes provide the copy of letter.
Please provide the copy of sanction plan.
Name designation and present official add. of the
person responsible for (a) taking the decision to
construct (b) sanctioning the month for the
construction.
If the post beat box supplied with electricity.
1
Underlined by us for emphasis
3
If yes provide the K number of the electricity
connection.
Is there any kind of Advt. displayed on the post/ beat
box?
If yes, is advertising tax paid to civic authorities.
However, pointing out deficiencies in information regarding each of the
Distts. Shri Agarwal has moved a second appeal before us with the following
prayer:
“1. The PIO be directed to provide complete and
comprehensive information free of cost in one batch.
2. Penalty bee imposed on the PIO under section 20 (1) of
the Act on account of the following.
a. not providing information within the time
specified under section 7 (1) in spite of repeated
orders by the Hon’ble Information Commissioner
Shri Tiwari.
b. Malafidely denying the request for information
repeatedly since February, 2006.
3. Separate penalties be imposed on other officers whose
assistance has been sought by the PIO under section 5
(1) of the Act.”
The appeal was heard on 15.1.09. The following are present:
Respondents
Shri Mohan Singh Bais, ACP HQ/C&T PHQ
Shri Kewal Krishan.
We have also received a letter from Shri Kewal Singh PIO PHQ and Addl.
CP requesting leave of absence, which is allowed. Appellant Sh. Rakesh
Agarwal had been informed by Notice dated 22.12.2008 regarding the hearing
but he has opted not to be present.
Shri Kewal Krishan SI submitted that over a period of time in responding to
the applications of Shri Agarwal, complete information has in fact been provided
to him through CD and printouts.
4
DECISION NOTICE
We find that in the decision of this Commission of 21.2.07, this Commission
has directed as follows:
“The CPIO is directed to furnish point-wise queries of the appellant.
For the sake of convenience, he is allowed to make a distinction
between Beat Boxes, which are one year and older and others
which are less then one year old. Information may be furnished to
him in regard to both these sets of Beat Boxes independently in
terms of the queries of the appellant stated in his petition dated
28.12.06. Consideration the fact that this information may be fairly
exhaustive, the respondents are allowed six weeks time from the
date of the receipt of this order, to compile and collate this and to
supply the same to the appellant in terms of the order above.
Having said this, it is also noticed the request at item 10 amounts to
asking the Police authorities if they encroached upon land. This is
loaded question and there is no need to give a reply to the same.
Similarly, no response need be given to Questions 19 and 20 which
are in the nature of eliciting opinion and advice. With the above
exceptions, reply should be furnished in respect of all other queries
in the appellant’s request dated 28.12.06It is also directed that in case the appellant is not satisfied with the
reply of the CPIO, as and when it is furnished, he should first
avail the opportunity to file the first appeal before the
Appellate Authority2, within the time limit prescribed in Act.”
It is on this basis that Shri Satish Chandra has issued his orders of 29.6.07
directing the PIO to provide the information to appellant Shri Agarwal. Upon
compliance of this order appellant Shri Rakesh Agarwal has evidently found
shortcomings in the response but has not challenged this before the First
Appellate Authority, as directed by this Commission.
st
Because the 1 appellate authority has not addressed the questions of
appellant, which are of direct concern to his public authority and because
appellant has pleaded no ground for making a direct complaint to us u/s 18, or
apprehension of malafide on the part of the Department, the Commission has
2
Emphasised by us for attention in following Para
5
decided to remand this appeal to Shri Qamar Ahmad, JCP (Gen. Admn), PHQ
st
and 1 appellate authority who is directed to dispose of the appeal within 15
working days from the date of receipt of this decision, under intimation to
Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission. If not satisfied
with the information so provided, appellant Shri Rakesh Agarwal will be free to
nd
move a fresh 2 appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3). Thee is however, no case
for imposition of penalty
This case, however, falls squarely within the provisions of sec. 4(1) (b) sub-
sections (i), (vii) & (xv) as well as sub sec (c) of Sec 4(1). The General
Administration Department of the PHQ is, therefore, directed to upload the
complete information on its website preferably in the proforma devised by the
appellant Shri Rakesh Agarwal in the present case, or adaptation thereof. This
exercise may be completed within twenty working days of the date of issue of this
Decision Notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar in
this Commission.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
15.1.2009
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
15.1.2009
6