CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001187/3949
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001187
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ripu Sudan,
R/O C-2/55 Sec-20 Rohni
Delhi-86
Respondent : Mr. S.K.Jain, PIO
DCP/PIO,
South East Disstt.,
Police Station Sarita Vihar,
Delhi
RTI application filed on : 17.02.2009
PIO replied : Not mentioned.
First appeal filed on : 01.04.2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 13.05.2009
The Appellant had sought information regarding charge sheet. An FIR was lodged against
Gurjit Singh Alias Raju by him on 13.04.2007 at Amar Colony police station.
Information sought:
1. Had accused Gurjit been taken under custody or not?
2. If yes then after how many days.
3. Compensation can be had or not.
4. Accused used to threaten on telephone during that period.
5. After how many days did summons issued to the Appellant to appear in Patiala Court
take for reach to the Appellant?
6. Appellant’s question/para is not clear in writing.
Reply of PIO:
Application had been transferred by Asstt. Commissioner/ Rohni Zone Nodal Officer, Rohini
Zone, Delhi-85 to DCP/PIO, South Distt., Police Station Haujkhas Delhi
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information had not been received by the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent
Respondent: Mr. S.K.Jain, PIO
The PIO states that the appellant filed RTI application on 17/02/2009 which has been transferred
to PIO(South District) on 19/02/2009. The PIO (South Distt.) transferred the application to
PIO(South East Distt.) who holds the information. PIO (South East Distt.) received the RTI
application on 27/02/2009 and gave the reply to the appellant on 27/03/2009. The reply has been
given by the PIO. The appellant has not attached the reply, but made a vague charge in his appeal
that the information is not satisfactory.
The appellant should have filed the application with Police and though RTI provides for
application to be transferred form one public authority to another, a citizen should try and
understand where the information is likely to be. The information sought by the appellant could
only have been with the police. The appellant has used his right without adequate responsibility,
and unnecessarily burdening the Government cannot be the objective of any responsible citizen.
The information has clearly been provided by the PIO.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
The information has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section 7(6) of
RTI, Act, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
1 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(Rnj)