CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00608 dated 1-6-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Dr. SC Pandey
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police DCP (PCR) Model Town
Decision Announced 4.9.'09
FACTS
By an application of 15-1-08 addressed to the DCP, PCR Dr. S.C.
Pandey of Saket, New Delhi sought the following information:
“Request to send me a certified copy of note page filed at page
No. 23, a written report signed by Shri Bachi Ram, SI, I/C
Record Branch, PCR dated 22.5.2007. An information u/s RTI
Act 2005.”
To this Dr. S.C. Pandey received a response on 18-1-08 from PIO,
PCR refusing the information u/s 8 (1) (j). Consequently, Dr. Pandey moved
an appeal on 23-2-2008 before JCP, Hqrs. Shri Ujjwal Mishra with the
following plea:
“(a) The DCP/ PIO, PCR Model Town has taken fake refuge
u/s 8 (1) (j) to provide a sheath to the officer on duty in his
subordination through whom he got attempted to commit
Cyber crime.
(b) In view of the gravity of information provided per their C.
R. D. D. No. 1555 PCR Information form with forged
super-imposition of 9 over 8 as a date, this 8 (1) (j) may
kindly be waived effecting requirements to meet u/s 2.”
In his order of 12-3-08 Shri Ujjwal Mishra informed Dr. Pandey as
follows:
“I am to inform that the certified copies of CPCR forms dated 6 &
9.5.2007 have already provided to you by the PIO/ PCR.”
Dr. Pandey has then moved an appeal before us on 23-5-09 pleading
condoning of delay on account of ill health and age. He has followed this up
with a request for out of turn hearing, which was allowed. The appeal was
heard on 4-9-2009. Following are present.
Appellant
Dr. SC Pandey
Respondents
Shri Kewal Singh, Addl. CP.
1
Shri Nek Chand Verma, SI/ RTI Cell/ PCR
Shri Narender Kumar, RTI/ PCR.
Shri Rajinder Singh, ACP/ PCR/ HQrs.
Shri Kewal Singh, Addl. CP submitted a detailed response dated 2-9-
09 from Shri Dheeraj Kumar, Addl. DCP, PCR, which concludes as follows:
“The appellant filed a complaint dated 7.5.09 and he was
informed that a discreet enquiry into the matter was conducted
through ACP/CPCR. During enquiry it revealed that a PCR call
was received on 9.5.07 at 1820/21 hours on channel No. 125/00.
After few minute another cal laws also received at 1829 hours in
command room. There is no tampering in the record (Date) of
call made by6 the appellant on 9.5.2007. On perusal of duty
roaster dated 8/9.5.07 the official namely HC Attar Singh, No.
248/PCR and ASI Budeshwar No. 1438/PCR had performed
their duty in the Central police Control Room on 8.5.09 from
0800 hours. Hence, the question regarding receiving of any call
from him on 8.5.07 does not arise. Moreover, appellant was
allowed to inspect the duty roaster and daily diary on any
working day after confirming the date and time from ACP/CPCR
on PA-100 at 4th Floor, Police Headquarters, MSO Building, I. P.
Estate, New Delhi by the Addl. C. P.? PCR vide his office letter
No. 345/P. Sec./ Addl. CP/Ops. Dated 4.6.09 but the appellant
did not turn up till date (Annexure -W). Hence, this 2nd appeal.”
Shri Kewal Singh, Addl. CP has also cited a decision by us in appeal
No. CIC/WB/A/2007/1245 announced on 27-1-09 in which we had decided
between the same parties as follows:
In the appeal concerning the case against DCP Central, if the
documents have been transferred to the concerned Court, the
request for information was required u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act also
to have been transferred to the public authority holding the
information. This will now be done within five working days of
the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
In this case if there is a suspicion of tampering with records, this
makes this a case of criminal liability and appellant Dr. Pandey
is advised to register an FIR in this matter. However, if not
satisfied with the information provided he may either move a first
appeal or if already moved, a second appeal before us if not
already time barred.
Appellant Dr. Pandey on the other hand dwelt at length on his
pleadings that he had made a call on 8-5-08 and that the records had been
tampered with. He conceded, however, that on his earlier RTI application he
2
has received the documents sought from the trial court to whom his request
was transferred.
Respondent Shri Kewal Singh submitted that such information as is
held by the Police O/o DCP, Control Room and permissible to be provided
under the law has been provided, but a decision in this case must be in
accordance with our decision of 27-1-09.
DECISION NOTICE
We find that our decision of 27-1-09 addresses in substance the same
issue that is under agitation in the present appeal. The question of
transferring part of the information sought to the court has been complied with
and action taken. In the present case what is again alleged is a question of
tampering of record, an issue with which we have already dealt advising
registration of an FIR. Shri Pandey has agitated no dissatisfaction with
information provided. It is neither possible nor apposite for the Commission
and indeed the Public Authority to repeatedly deal with an issue that stands
decided. This Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
4-9-2009
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
4-9-2009
3