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/2010/000240
Name of the Appellant : Shri Sunil Marwah
(The Appellant was present)
Name of the Public Authority : Delhi Police, Central Dist, Delhi.
Represented by Sh. M. S. Bisht,
ACP, HQ/Central Dist, and Shri P.
Sanjeev Kumar, Inspector/SHO,
Shri P. Manu, Const./RTI Cell.
The matter was heard on : 16.8.2010
ORDER
Shri Sunil Marwaha, the Appellant vide RTI Application dated
5.2.2010 requested for the following information from the PIO/Central
Distt. Delhi:
i) Furnish the List of F.I.R.’s wherein the co-accused in the
F.I.R.’s have not been arrested.
ii) Furnish the cause of delay in arresting the co-accused in
the FIR No. 265/08.
iii) Furnish the copy of statement filed by the I.O. Shri
Sandeep Gupta in the Court of C.M.M. Ms. Kaweri
Baweja on the last date of hearing relating to FIR No.
265/08.
Ms Meenu Choudhary, PIO, Central Distt. Delhi vide letter dated
6.3.2010 replied as follows:
1. No such record is maintained.
2. This information does not come under the definition of
section (f) of RTI-05.
3. All documents may be collected from concerned court.
Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed an appeal before
the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Shri Jasbir Singh, FAA/Dy.
Commissioner of Police, Central Distt. Delhi, while upholding the reply/
decision of the PIO, Central Distt., remitted the matter back to the
PIO/Central Distt. with the direction to transfer the RTI application to
the PIO, office of District and Session Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi for
providing the requisite information to the appellant. In compliance, the
PIO/Central Distt., vide letter dated 23.4.2010, informed the Appellant
that his RTI Application was being transferred to the Supdt. (PIO),
Office of Distt. and Session Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi for providing the
information at their end. Not satisfied with the reply of Respondent, the
Appellant has filed the present appeal before the Commission.
During the hearing, the Appellant submits that he does not wish
to pursue the information sought for at point No. 1 of the RTI
Application. He, however, submits that the Respondent must furnish to
him the reasons for delay in arresting the co-accused in an FIR No.
265/08 since the matter is 2 years old and no action has been taken to
arrest the co-accused. The Appellant also submits that while the
PIO/Central Distt. has informed him that his RTI Application is being
transferred to the Supdt. (PIO), Office of District and Session Judge,
Tis Hazari, Delhi for providing the information for point No.3 of the RTI
Application, a copy of the letter/endorsement to the PIO, Office of
District and Session Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi has not been provided to
him. He submits that he needs this document to enable him to pursue
the matter with the PIO, Office of District and Session Judge, Tis
Hazari, Delhi.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of relevant documents
on file, the Commission directs the Respondent to inform the Appellant
the status of investigation regarding role of the other accused in FIR
No. 265/08. They also directed to provide the Appellant with the copy
of the letter/endorsement whereby the PIO, Central District, Delhi
Police has transferred the RTI Application to Tis Hazari Court. The
direction of the Commission are complied by the Respondent/CPIO
within 10 days of receipt of this order.
With these observations the matter is disposed off on the part of
the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
16.08.2010