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/SS/A/2009/000119 Name of Appellant : Dr. Arun Agarwal Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, New Delhi Dist.
Dr. Arun Agarwal, the Appellant vide his RTI application dated 24.04.2009,
sought a copy of complaint filed by the two security guards of Gorkha Security
Service, against him with the Respondent Public Authority. Sh. V. A. Gupta, Addl.
Dy. Commissioner of Police-cum-CPIO denied the desired information u/s 8(1)(g)
of the RTI Act. The desired information / document was also denied on the ground
that the complainant had specifically requested not to disclose the copy of the
complaint to the Appellant. Aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO the Appellant filed
an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Upon not getting a reply from the
FAA., the Appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.
The matter was heard on 5.05.2010.
Dr. Arun Agarwal, the Appellant was present.
Sh. Satbir Singh, ACP and Sh. Bharat Bhushan, HC represented the Respondent
During the hearing the Appellant vehemently requests for disclosure of
information by submitting that the desired information is not exempted under any of the
provisions of the RTI Act. On the other hand the Respondent submits that a complaint
was filed by the Security Guards against the Appellant, but no action was taken by Police
on that complaint. The Respondents also submits that the disclosure of desired
information may lead to harassment of the complainants. The Respondent also submit
that the FAA has indeed responded to the Appellant’s second appeal vide his letter dated
30.06.2009. The Appellant pointed out a gap in the date of the order and its date of
dispatch, which, the Appellant submits is on 21.07.2009. The Commission notices some
gap between the date of the order of the FAA and the dispatch date of the same, as
alleged by the Appellant. In this regard the FAA may give necessary directions /
guidance to his dispatch staff.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents and specifically
keeping in view the fact that the third party, (i.e. complaint to police) has specifically
requested the police not to furnish the copy of complaint to the Appellant, the
Commission finds no infirmity in the order of the Respondent. The Commission do feel
that the disclosure of desired information may identify the source of assistance given in
confidence for law enforcement. The Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the
police has not taken any action on the imugend complaint and withholding of such
information would not cause any prejudice or harm to the Appellant. The Commission
also has to keep in mind the unnecessary harassment of the third party, which may be
caused by disclosure of the desired information for just moving a complaint to the police,
on which no action was taken by Police.
Hence, in view of the above and keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstance of the present case, the Commission upholds the decision of the Respondent
in the present case.
With these observations / directions the matter is disposed of accordingly.