CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/001610 dated 11 -12-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri R.K. Arya
Respondent: Deputy Commissioners Police (DCP), Economic Offences Wing
(EOW).
Facts
We have two Appeals in file Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 and
CIC/WB/A/2007/001610 that are identical except in that the information
sought is with regard to two different Police Officers: Inspector Shri R.K. Gulia
in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 and Sub Inspector Shri Suresh Lakra in
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001610. The information sought in both the cases is
as follows, with the name of Sub Inspector Shri Suresh Lakra replacing that of
Inspector Gulia in the application concerning SI Lakra.
1. “Please tell the residential address of Shri Suresh Lakra,
Sub-Inspector (EOW) Crime, Delhi Police having office at
Qutub Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
2. Please supply the copy of Income Tax return filed by Shri
Suresh Lakra, Sub-Inspector, to Income Tax Department
and to you for the years 2002 to 2006.
3. Please give the details of properties, which have been
furnished by Shri Suresh Lakra, Sub-Inspector (EOW)
Crime, Delhi Police at the time to join the service for the
year 2005 and 2006.
4. Please tell what is gross salary and carrying home salary
of Shri Suresh Lakra, Sub-Inspector (EOW) Crime, Delhi
Police.
In both cases an identical response was received dated 2.4.2007
refusing the information/documents, sought u/s 8 (1) (j) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005. In both cases appeals were moved on 20.4.2007 and
an identical decision dated 15.5.2007 given by Shri Ranjit Narayan, JCP
(Crime) as follows:
“Having carefully gone through the contents of appeal and
material available on record, it is found that the appellant has
sought personal information mentioned above in respect of Inspr.
R. K. Gulia, which has no relationship to any public activity or
interest. Undoubtedly, disclosure of this personal information
would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the1
individual. The exemption of information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI
Act, 2005, has, therefore, been correctly applied by the PIO. The
decision of PIO is upheld.”
Appellant’s prayer before us is also identical in both cases and reads
as follows:
“Relief sought against the act and conduct/ gross
negligence of the said PIO and the First Appellate Authority
under Right to Information Act, 2005.”
In both cases penalty has been sought against the CPIO and Appellate
Authority. Four appeals were heard together on 13-4-2009. The following
were present.
Appellants
Shri Rajender Kumar Arya
Shri Ramesh Kumar
Respondents
Shri K.K. Vyas, DCP
Shri Ramesh Chander, Inspector
Shri M.K. Mishra, S.I.
Shri Ganga Sahai Meena, ACP/HQ/E
In the two cases mentioned in Para 1 DCP Shri K.K. Vyas clarified that
the officers concerned are no longer with EOW but are (i) Mr. R.K. Gulia with
Crime Branch and (ii) Shri Suresh Lakra with Security. Although, already
explained to DCP at least part of the information sought by the appellant
regarding these officers is fully disclosable suo moto u/s 4 (1) (b) (ix) and (x)
of the RTI Act, but before ordering full disclosure of the information sought
both parties being a third party in these cases we deemed it necessary that
we give them opportunity to be heard. The hearing in both these cases was,
st
therefore, adjourned to 1 May 2009 at 11.30 a.m. when appellant and third
parties were directed to appear. The DCP, EOW having made his points was
not required to appear. Accordingly the cases were heard once more on 15-5-
2009. The following were present
Appellants
Shri Rajender Kumar Arya
Shri R. K. Goyal.
Respondent
Shri Ram Kanwar Gulia, Inspector.
2
Shri Lakra appeared for hearing at 12.45 p.m. He submitted that first he
had gone to Old JNU campus as he was not aware as to where he has to
report because he received the message over the telephone a day before and
could not determine where he has to report. He therefore sought opportunity
for further hearing, which was accepted, and accordingly the hearing in File
th
No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001610. was adjourned to 12 June, 2009 at 12.30 p.m.
when Shri Suresh Lakra was asked to be present. The appellant was also to
appear if he so wished. The hearing in file No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01610 was
held on 12-6-2009, when the following are present.
Appellant
Shri Rajender Kumar Arya.
Shri Ramesh
Respondent
Shri Suresh Kumar, SI.
Shri Suresh Kumar submitted written arguments stating that he was
Investigating Officer in the case involving Shri R.K. Arya as a result of which
Shri Arya has been stalking him and harassing his family. He has
apprehensions of danger to his family. In this context he has cited the
following from our decision in file No. CIC/WB/A/2007/1547:
“That the CIC further held, ‘that their can be an exception to this
rule if the position held by the official concerned or the work he/
she is engaged is of so sensitive a nature that any such
disclosure could lead to apprehension to the life of physical
safety of the persons in which case it will merit exemption from
disclosure of information.”
On this basis he has gone on to argue that his residential address
should not be disclosed for the following reasons:
“a) The appellant Shri Rajendra Kumar Arya was rightly
involved in case FIR No. 140/2006 dated 5.4.2006 u/s
63/65 C.R. Act and 420/120B, P. S. Krishna Nagar on the
basis of the raid conducted on the complaint of Mr.
Anurudh Kumar Chaubey authorised representative of
Hoghton Miffin Co. on 5.4.2006. it may be stated that
when he has produced before the learned ACMM on
6.4.2006, he did not point out any procedural discrepancy
or misbehaviour caused during course of investigation.
He levelled many such allegations in an after thought
manner there after. On 21.4.2006, the accused
(Appellant here) did not reveal any grudge what so ever
against either the complainant or the police. If he3
(Appellant) would have any, he was free to bring out into
the notice of the court.
Further the appellant did not mention any of his
complaints in the bail petition, which he made later on two
different quarters that certain files and other articles were
stolen from his house by the raiding team and also
regarding misbehaviour caused to him. Those articles
were not allegedly mentioned in the seizure memo
prepared by the police. Even though the complaints of
the appellant were taken into consideration by the
Hon’ble Court, the appellant unceasingly took the issue to
different authorities and tried to mount pressure on the
investigating officers. Further the appellant has
attempted to pressurize the complainant by sending his
men to the residence of the complainant for a negotiation
in the matter in the night intervening 18/19-5-06. The
appellant has been trying to hamper the investigation by
putting pressure on the IO and ACP/IPR by way of
throwing complaints. The acts of the appellants are really
revenge against the police and prosecution witness
because of the reason he was booked by them. When on
5.5.2006, the Hon’ble ASJ ordered the appellant to
furnish the sale records to the IO he engineered a plan to
file a complaint against the raiding party so that he may
escape the liability of producing the records. The
appellant devised a way to pressurize the IO by sending
a legal notice under different sections of law with
threatening language though he was caught with
infringed books. The appellant has been suing his
energy to hamper the investigation by way of filing false
and frivolous complaints against the complaints and the
investigating agency. The appellant tried to tamper with
the evidences and win over the witnesses.
From the above, it is clear that the appellant was having a
hostile attitude towards the respondent, who was the IO
of the case( SI Suresh Lakra) to bring any physical and
bodily harm including the faculty of the respondents.
Moreover the respondent was dealing with the case of
sensitive nature in that the disclosure of the residence of
the respondent could lead to apprehension of danger to
the life of physical safety of the person and all the
circumstances will merit the exemption from disclosure of
information.
b) Ignited by the vengeance reaped up the appellant to
cause bodily and physical harm to the respondent, the
appellant filled three complaint cases bearing No.
21/2007, 26/2007 and 33/2007. In all the aforesaid
4
criminal cases, the appellant has alleged that the
respondent had demanded and accepted the bribe from
the appellant. The bribe money according to appellant
ranged between thousands and lakhs at different
occasions. The appellant further alleged that respondent
was having the properties, which were disproportionate to
his known sources of income. In complaint no. 26/07 and
33/07 the appellant levelled false allegation against
Inspector Tej Pal and DCP Mahavir Singh to save the
respondent from the punishment and to register a FIR
under different section of law. All the three complaint
cases were dismissed by the learned Court of Shri S. P.
Garg, Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi vide
judgement/ Order dated 20.12.2008. All this goes to
show that the appellant wanted to cause bodily harm and
injury to the respondent. The learned special judge has
given a number of the grounds in support of his decision
while dismissing the complaints. The respondent is not
repeating the grounds of dismissal of the complaints or
the sake of brevity.
c) That it is established that the appellant wants to cause
harm in body and faculties of the respondent by filing
false complaints of corruption against the respondent. It
will further be seen that the sanction under section 197
read with section 140 of Delhi Police Act 1978 and u/s 19
of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to lodge the criminal
proceedings against the respondents u/s 381/342/341 etc
and u/s 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption act 1988 was
rejected by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor NCT Delhi vide
order F.7/57/2006/HP-1/ESTT.6199 dated 13.11.2007.
Thus the appellant was out and out intending to cause
bodily harm and so the respondent is apprehending the
danger to his life of public safety, thus the circumstances
merit the exemption from disclosure of information.”
He concluded with the argument that such disclosure will amount to
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
DECISION NOTICE:
In this case the exemption sought by Shri Lakra from disclosure of his
residential address is with regard to the position held by him. However, this
position has not been classified by the Police Department. We would only
5
reiterate what we has stated in the case of “R.K. Arya Vs. DCP, EOW” file No.
CIC/WB/A/2007/1547 in which we have held as follows:
“A conscious decision of this nature will have to be taken with
regard to each such official failing which this exemption cannot
be claimed in a general manner.”
A conscious decision of this nature will have to be taken at least by the
Head of Department and not by the official himself. As held by us in the
earlier case cited above the official residential address is an integral part of
the disclosure mandated for every public authority u/s 4 (1) (b) (ix). In view of
this the appeal is allowed. The information asked will be provided to the
appellant Shri Arya by the CPIO within 10 working days of the date of issue of
this decision notice.
Reserved in the hearing, this Decision is announced in open chamber
on this 18th day of June, 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
18-6-2009
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
18-6-2009
6