CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00974 dated 24.9.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Ajit Kar
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP) Vigilance
Facts
:
By his application of 12.2.07 Shri Ajit Kar of Satyaniketan, New Delhi
applied to the DCP (South West) seeking information on 29 questions. To this
he received a pointwise response from Shri M. R. Gothwal, PIO (Vigilance) Delhi,
to whom the application stood transferred as follows:
“1. A vigilance enquiry on your complaint dated 3.6.05 was
conducted in this office and outcome of the vigilance enquiry
was furnished to you vide this office letter No. 7731/ RTI/
Vig. Dated 22.2.2007. Your another complaint dated 4.10.05
had become the part of vigilance enquiry file.
2-9 This information cannot be given to you as per section 8 (1)
(j) RTI Act as disclosure of this information has not
relationship to any public activity of interest.
12. Most of the information pertains to Delhi Police are available
on Delhi Police Website.
13. The vigilance branch was set up in the year of 1964 for
prevention and detection of corruption or any other
malpractices of the part of all personnel of Delhi Police
during their official or private conduct.
19. (II) Statement of witnesses cannot be given to you as per
section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, as the depositions recorded in
good faith and in confidence during the course of enquiry.
The identities of such citizens who cooperate with the law
enforcement authorities need to be protected, as was held
by CIC in the case of Vinod Kr. Sharma VS Delhi Police in
case File no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00373 dated 23.11.2006.
19 (III) Reply has already been sent to you vide this office letter No.
7731/ RTI (Vig.) dated 22.2.2007.
1
20 (II) Statement of witnesses cannot be given to you as per
section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, as the depositions recorded in
good faith and in confidence during the course of enquiry.
The identities of such citizens who cooperate with the law
enforcement authorities need to be protected, as was held
by CIC in the case of Vinod Kr. Sharma vs. Delhi Police in
case File No. CIC/aT/A/2006/00373 dated 23.11.2006.
20 (III) Reply has already been sent to you vide this office letter No.
7731/ RTI (Vig.) dated 22.2.2007.
21. This information cannot be furnished to you as per section 8
(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 being personal information.
22. Your complaint dated 9.9.2005 had become the part of
vigilance enquiry file, which was conducted on your
complaint 3.6.05.
23. Reply has already been sent to you vide this office letter No/
7731/ RTI (Vig.) dated 22.2.2007.
24. Yes, a person can give his complaint to the Vigilance Branch
directly.
27. No such provision in Delhi Police in this regard.
28. This information is available on Delhi Police website.
Rest of information can not be provided to you in view of section 2
(f) of RTI Act, 2005.”
In the meantime, however, because he had not received the information in
the time specified u/s 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Shri Ajit Kar
moved his first appeal before the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) who
in turn dismissed the appeal on 15.5.07 finding that the PIO (Vigilance) had in
fact responded, on the following basis:
“There are no fresh grounds in the appeal to interfere with the
orders of PIO/ Vig.”
In his second appeal before us, appellant’s prayer is as follows:
“1. That the respondent may be ordered to give or caused
to give all information wanted soon.
2
2. That the PIO and the respondent may be ordered to be
careful and meticulous and punctual in the future.
3. That the appellant may be given cost of his
inconvenience, loss due to lack of promptitude in giving
information which the appellant could us in application
given in various court of justice.
4. That any other relief the CIC deems fit may reward in
favour of the appellant and against the respondent.”
However, under the hearing “grounds specific”, he has cited his objections
to the response given by the PIO and not by the appellate authority.
The appeal was heard on 12.3.09. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri Ajit Kar
Respondent
Shri M. N. Tiwari, DCP (Vigilance)PIO Shri M. N. Tiwari, DCP (Vigilance) submitted that the RTI application
was transferred to the Vigilance Office by DCP (S.W.) on 13.2.07. Because the
application was bulky and required considerable work, in order to answer each of
the questions, it took time to compile the same. However, he stated that he has
now reviewed the earlier order given and is ready with pointwise answers.
DECISION NOTICE
Because the appellate authority had not addressed the questions of
appellant, which are of direct concern to his public authority and because
appellant has pleaded no ground for making a direct complaint to us u/s 18, or
apprehension of malafide on the part of the Department, and because the PIO
has in the hearing assured us of his readiness to provide answers to questions
remaining unanswered, the Commission has decided to remand this appeal to
PIO Shri M. N. Tiwari, D.C.P. (Vigilance), Public Information Officer who is
directed to dispose of the appeal within 15 working days from the date of
3
receipt of this decision, under intimation to Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar,
Central Information Commission. If not satisfied with the information so provided,
appellant Shri Ajit Kar will be free to move a fresh 1st appeal before Addl.
Commissioner of Police (Vigilance).
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
12.3.2009
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
12.3.2009
4