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/SM/A/2009/0001537
Name of Appellant : Sh. L. D. Chopra
Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, NorthWest Dist.
Ashok Vihar
Sh. L. D. Chopra, the Appellant, filed an application dated 13.05.2009 before the CPIO /
Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North-West Dist., Delhi in which he had requested to be
provided with the following point-wise information / documents within 48 hours as per proviso to
Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The point-wise queries in the RTI application and the reply to
each point furnished by Sh. Brham Kumar Singh, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North-West
Dist. vide letter dated 11.06.2009 is as follows:-
”
Question Reply
S. No.
'A' (i) Certified copy of the appeal filed in The requisite copy of appeal cannot be
CIC by Sh. Pratap Singh against provided as the same is not concerned to
Jt. C.P./Southern Range; this office. We can provide documents which
are available with us and we can't create
document to you as your desire.
(ii) Certified copy of the CIC's The copy of CIC's decision dated 31.05.2006
decision so circulated by Jt. C. P./ in the appeal of Sh. Partap Singh against
Southern Range & available on your the Jt. S.P. / Southern Range is available
records, so as to quote the same. with this office but the same cannot be
acceded to under section 11 of the RTI Act.
2005 as the information is related to
third party.
'B' (i) Certified copy of my specific You may collect the copy of your request for
request for conducting conducting Vigilance Enquiry under RTI Act.
VIGILANCE ENQUIRY under 2005 made to DCP/North West district vide
RTI Act. foolish made to PIO with ID/Dy. No. 1786/GD.NWD dated 31.01.2009
ID No. & Date. from this office on any working dated after
depositing the requisite fee @ Rs. 2/- per page
under RTI Act. 2005.
(ii) Certified copy of any communication There is no other communication from you is
from me partial line in the nature of available in this office except your request
making a public authority to do Dated 31.01.09, which is enclosed at point
certain things or to take certain B (i) above.
action, thus necessitating
QUOTE OF CIC'S DECISION B(ii)
Under RTI Act.
2. Permission to inspect the relevant file. You may inspect the relevant RTI file on my
Working day, between 11 AM to 1.00 PM and
fee as applicable under Right to Information
(Regulation of fee & cost) Rules-2005, will be
charged accordingly, under RTI Act. 2005.
Note: Your request to dispose off your RTI application within 48 hours as per proviso to section
7(1) of RTI Act, 2005 concerns to life or liberty cannot be acceded as the contention of your
application does not come under the sphere of above said proviso because your matter is related
to a property dispute between you and your nephew (Bhanja) and a civil suit is pending in the
court in this regard and there is no any type of apprehension to your life or liberty. Hence, the
information / documents sought by you is provided within the statuary period of 30 days under the
provision of RTI Act. 2005.”
Aggrieved with the reply stating that no communication whatsoever within 48 hours was
received, the Appellant filed a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) Sh. N. S.
Bundela, who vide his decision dated 14.07.2009 held that the information / documents sought by
the Appellant does not come under the sphere of information related to “life and liberty” as there is
property dispute between the Appellant and his nephew and a civil suit is pending in the court.
The FAA also held that the requested information has already been provided by the CPIO, within
the stipulated period under the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the Respondent the
Appellant has filed a second appeal before the Commission submitting therein that he had not been
provided certified copies of the documents he has requested for in his RTI application nor had he
been granted permission to inspect the relevant file.
2. The matter was heard on 20.04.2010.
3. The Appellant was not present.
4. Sh. B. S. Jaiswal, Addl. DCP/NW, Sh. Satender, SHO/MA, Sh. Ajay Kumar, S.I. and
Sh. Bijender Singh, ASI represented the Respondent Public Authority.
On due consideration of the matter the Commissioner finds that the Appellant had
requested the CPIO for certified copies of the appeal filed before the Central Information
Commission (CIC), by Sh. Pratap Singh against the decision of the Jt. Commissioner of Police,
Southern Range and also for certified copies of CIC’s decision in this matter. The orders of the
Respondent are upheld, as the desired information is not held by the Respondent. The Commission
notes that the CPIO has already offered to provide the Appellant with the certified copies of other
information on payment of requisite fees and also offered him an opportunity to inspect the
relevant files which, the Appellant Sh. L. D. Chopra, has not availed of, as reported by the
Respondent. The Commission, therefore, does not find any merit in the plea of Sh. L. D. Chopra,
the Appellant that he has not been provided the requisite documents by the Respondent and also
holds that his RTI application does not concern a life or liberty matter.
With this order, the matter is disposed of accordingly.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
20.04.2010