Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Kama Place
New Delhi
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000899
Name of Appellant : Mr. Sachidanand Mishra
(The Appellant was present along
with Mr. G. Rajput)
Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, South East District,
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
Represented by:
Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,
Addl. DCP, Shri Pawan Kumar,
ACP and Shri A.K. Singh, S.I.
The matter was heard on: 19.7.2011
ORDER
Mr. Sachidanand Mishra, the Appellant has filed this appeal before the
Commission submitting therein that he has been denied the information sought in
his RTI application dated 10.03.2011 by the Respondent. The Appellant alleges
that he has been denied this information, since the information desired is
regarding Shri Bhim Singh Rajora a head constable with Delhi Police and his
relatives/friends who indulge in criminal activities in the residential colony where
the Appellant resides. He submits that the Respondent Police Authorities are
shielding Shri Bhim Singh Rajora.
The Appellant, vide his RTI application dated 10.3.2011 sought
information on the following 2 points:-
1. A copy of the Inquiry Report on a complaint filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar
Suri against Shri Jagat Singh Rajora and Shri Bhim Singh Rajora
regarding an incident which occurred in the year 2009.
2. The Appellant sought to know the number of complaints filed against
Shri Bhim Singh Rajora, Shri Jagat Singh Rajora, Shri Santosh Kumar
Srivastava and Shri Manoj Kumar Pal in P.S. Sarita Vihar since
January 2009 to 10.3.2011 along with copies of enquiry report.
Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I/PIO,
South-East District, Delhi, vide letter No/3142 dated 5.4.2011 informed the
Appellant on question No.1 that case FIR No.73/10 and 185/10 has been filed at
P.S. Sarita Vihar with reference to the complaint filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Suri.
The PIO has held that since the matter is pending trial in the Hon’ble Court, the
information/documents cannot be provided to the Appellant under the provisions
of section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as disclosure of this information would
impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution of offenders.
On question No.2 of the RTI application the PIO has replied “Not applicable in
view of point No.1 above.”
The Appellant has not filed first appeal in this matter and instead has
directly approached the Commission. In his 2nd appeal filed before the
Commission, the Appellant has also attached copies of the reply of PIO/FAA in
respect of his RTI application dated 18.2.2011 filed by him in which he sought
information about a complaint lodged by him against Shri Bhim Singh Rajora,
Head Constable. In reply to this RTI application, the Appellant was informed that
his complaint has been filed after inquiry. Copy of Inquiry Report was not
provided to the Appellant on the grounds that he had not sought a copy of the
Inquiry Report in his RTI application dated 18.2.2011.
During the hearing the Appellant presses the point that the PIO had failed
to provide the information on point No,.2 of his RTI application dated 10.3.2011 in
which he sought to know the details of complaints filed against Shri Bhim Singh
Rajora for the period January 2009 to 10.3.2011. The Appellant submits that this
information has been denied to him on flimsy grounds which shows that
Respondent are not providing complete information to the Appellant regarding
Shri Rajora who is a part of Delhi Police. As per the Appellant, there are a
number of complaints against Shri Rajora on which no action has been taken by
the concerned authorities.
After hearing the submissions of both parties and on perusal of relevant
documents on file, it is clear that the PIO has failed to provide information on
point No.2 of the RTI application dated 10.3.2011 to the Appellant. PIO’s reply is
vague and not pertinent. The Commission hereby directs the PIO to provide
complete information with respect to point No.2 of the RTI application dated
10.3.2011 along with all copies of Inquiry Reports to the Appellant. The
Respondent is also directed to provide a copy of Inquiry Report on the
Appellant’s complaint dated 28.7.2010. The failure of the Respondent PIO to
inform the Appellant of all the complaints filed against Shri Bhim Singh Rajora
between January, 2009 to 10.3.2011, leads the Commission to believe that the
Respondent have not been very transparent in dealing with complaints against
Shri Rajora. The RTI Act mandates transparency and accountability in the
working of every Public Authority. Therefore, in addition to aforementioned
directions of the Commission which are to be carried out within 15 days of receipt
of this order, the Commission also advises the Respondent to carry out an
inquiry into all the complaints filed against Shri Rajora at a senior level i.e. at the
level of DCP or Addl. DCP level and inform the Appellant of the status.
The matter is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
2.08.2011
Authenticated true copy
(K.K. Sharma )
OSD & Dy. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Mr. Sachchidanand Mishra,
41 D Pocket 12 DDA LIG Flats,
Jasola, New Delhi – 110025.
2. The Public Information Officer,
Dy. Commissioner of Police,
South East Distt, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority,
Addl. Commissioner of Police,
South East Distt, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi.