CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000339/11890
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000339
Appellant : Mr. Gianender
107/1, Pana Udhyan, Narela,
Delhi-110040
Respondent : Mr. Sehdev Singh
PIO & Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi,
Vikas Bhawan - 2. 5th Floor, Upper Bela Road,
Delhi-110054
RTI application filed on : 12.10.2010
PIO replied on : 26.10.2010
First appeal filed on : 18.11.2010
First Appellate Authority order : 30.11.2010
Second Appeal received on : 03.02.2011
Information sought by the Applicant:
The appellant sought the following:
1. Certified copy of FIR No. 23/2010 (A.C. Branch)
2. Certified copy of the RTI application.
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO replied that
1. As the case is pending investigation, the copy of the FIR cannot be provided in view of section
8 (1) (g) and 8 (1) (h).
2. The question is not clear.
Grounds of first Appeal:
The reply provided was incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA was of the opinion that the information provided by the PIO is justified in regards to point 1st
and for the 2nd point, the RTI application will be provided to him.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The reply given by the PIO is incomplete and unsatisfactory in regard to point 1 of the RTI.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Gianender;
Respondent: Mr. Sehdev Singh, PIO & Assistant Commissioner of Police;
The Respondent has stated that the FIR disclosure is exempted under Section-8(1)(g)&(h) of
the RTI Act. The Respondent was asked to explain the reasons who these exemptions would apply.
The Respondents states that the FIR relates to development of unauthorized colonies of agricultural
land. Hence disclosing the details of the complainant could endanger their life and physical safety. The
Respondent also claims that if the details of FIR are disclosed the suspects are likely to obtain the
original documents from the victims and thus investigation could be hampered. The Commission
directs the PIO to ensure that the reasons which are being given before the Commission are mentioned
in the original order when rejecting the RTI application. It is not adequate to merely quote a subsection
of Section-8(1). When denying citizens fundamental right it is necessary to give reasons.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The denial of information under Section-8(1)(g) &(h) are upheld by the
Commission.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
07 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MS)