In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001897
Date of Hearing : October 20, 2011
Date of Decision : October 20, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Ajay Kumar
S/o Late Shri Suresh Chander
G45/10, Laxmi Park
Nangloi
Delhi 110 041
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Respondents
O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate (Punjabi Bagh)
Department of Revenue
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Main Rohtak Road
Nangloi
Delhi
Represented by : Shri Dharambir Singh, Naib Tehsildar
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001897
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.12.10 with the PIO, O/o SDM(Punjabi Bagh), GNCTD
seeking information on action taken on his representations dt.9.2.09, 30.3.09, 7.7.09, 1.2.10, 30.6.10
and 26.7.10. Shri Sunil Shanwal, APIO replied on 7.1.11 stating that all the letters have already been
sent to concerned SHO’s for report. He added that the RTI Application too is being forwarded to
SHOs for action taken report. The Station House Officer, PS Nihal Vihar in his letter dt.7.1.11
addressed to SDM(Punjabi Bagh) stated the following:
‘….Complainant Shri Ajay Kumar….. has given a no. of complaint and enquiry was conducted into
matter by various I.O and all were filed as no cognizable offence is found to be made out. The shop
of complainant is situated near his residence. There is no notice or seal on this shop and the same is
locked. It was locked by the complainant and he is not opening the same. There is no hinderance to
open and running the shop. He is having old altercation with Sheesh Pal and others named in the
complaint, a case FIR No.87/10 U/s 324/34 IPC PS Nihal Vihar Delhi has been registered against
Sheesh Pal and others and the same is being sent to court for trial. The complainant is habitual of
making complaints. However, no cognizable offence is made out from the content of the complaints.
Preventive action will be taken against the parties if apprehension of breach of piece arises in future’.
The Applicant filed an appeal dt.19.4.11 with the Appellate Authority stating that the enquiry has not
been conducted properly. Shri G.S.Meena, Appellate Authority after scheduling the hearing on
7.5.11 where the Applicant was also present disposed off the appeal vide his order dt.12.5.11 stating
the following:
i) On being asked, the Applicant started weeping saying that he is the owner of the property
No.G45/10 Laxmi Park Nangloi Delhi and one Sheeshpal is harassing and torturing him in order to
evict him from the said property. He further stated that due to the threats extended by said
Sheeshpal and inaction on the part of the local police he has to close his shop.
ii) In view of the above, since the information is available with the SHO Nihal Vihar the
PIO/SDM(Punjabi Bagh) is directed to transfer the application of the Applicant to the PIO of Delhi
Police West District who will provide information to the Applicant within the prescribed time.
The Appellate Authority also advised the Applicant to apprise the senior officers of police department
about his grievances. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.Nil
before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents briefed the Commission about the case. They stated that the
Appellant owns a shop near his residence and that one Mr. Sheeshpal has been harassing the
Appellant and members of his family because of which the Appellant is unable to run his shop or
live in that area. According to the Respondents, the concerned SHO cum PIO/DCP(West), Delhi
Police Rajouri Garden, New Delhi had enquired into the case and had found that the shop was locked
and that no cognizable offence could be made out from the content of the complaints.
3. The Appellant’s younger brother who also was present at the hearing complained that the enquiry
was not done in a fair manner since neither he nor the Appellant was called by the SHO to hear their
point of view before coming to a conclusion. (The Appellant could not be heard since he became
emotional and started weeping ..
4. The Commission after hearing the submissions by both parties noted that the Appellant has not
sought any information in his second appeal and that he has only expressed his grievance against
the Police for not having conducted the enquiry in a fair manner. Hence no information needs to be
disclosed.
5. The Commission, however, recommends that the Joint Commissioner of Police direct the concerned
SHO call both sides (Appellant and Mr Sheeshpal ) to the police station and hear both of them ,
preferably within 15 days of receipt of this order, and thereafter to take appropriate action.
6. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Ajay Kumar
S/o Late Shri Suresh Chander
G45/10, Laxmi Park
Nangloi
Delhi 110 041
2. The Public Information Officer
O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate (Punjabi Bagh)
Department of Revenue
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Main Rohtak Road
Nangloi
Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
O/o Deputy Commissioner (West)
Department of Revenue
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Middle School Building
Lawrence Road
Rampura
Delhi 110 035
4. The Joint Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters
MSO Building
I.P.Estate
New Delhi
5. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission’s decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she
considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what
information has not been provided.