CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00732 dated 18.5.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri K. K. Sachan
Respondent - Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi (Hospital Admn.)
Facts
:
By an application of 20.12.06, assigned ID No. 215, Shri Krishna
Kumar Sachan of Shastri Nagar, Delhi applied to the PIO Director
(Hospital Admn) MCD seeking the following information:
1. “Sanction u/s 197 Cr. PC for filing a Criminal complaint case between
8.1.1997 to 28.10.1998 by DR. R. V. Ahirwal who was employed as
Resident Medical Supdt of Hudson Line maternity Hospital, Kingsway
Camp, Delhi.
2. Dr. R. V. Ahirwal had filed a Criminal complaint against his Pharmacist K.
K. Sachan u/s 166/186/323/353/511 IPC and Sec 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act
(POA Act) 1989, which is pending trial in the Court of Shri Rajnish Kumar
Gupta, ASF Delhi and is now fixed for 13.2.2007.
Kindly intimate us, it any prior sanction was obtained from the Department
for initiating criminal prosecution by a public servant i.e. Dr. R. V. Ahirwal
against another public servant Shri K. K. Sachan, between 8.1.1997 to
28.10.1998. If, yes, then kindly supply the copy of the sanction.”
To this he received a response of 15.1.07 from Director (Hospital Admn) attaching
a copy of a point wise response from Addl. MHO (M) as follows:
1. “As per report from RMS/ Hudson Line Mty. Home dated 29.12.2006, no
record whatsoever w.r.t. the case against Shri R. K. Sachan, Pharmacist,
U/S 166/ 186/ 189/ 323/ 511 IPC and Section 3 (1) (K) of SC/ST Act
(POA) 1989. Which is pending trial in the court of Hon’ble Shri Rajnish
Kumar Gupta, ASJ, Delhi; no record whatsoever, w.r.t. the case is
available at Hudson Line Mty. Home.1
2. As per report from Dr. R. V. Ahirwal, who had filed criminal complaint
regarding sanction U/S 197 C for filing a criminal case, it is informed.
a) Incidence was reported to ADHS (GD) on 9.1.1997 Diary No.
5851/ADHS (GD) for necessary action against K. K. Sachan etc.1
Highlighted by us1
b) Matter was again reported to Commissioner MCD on 20.1.1997 or
20.2.1997.
c) Written complaint for necessary action/ permission who handed
over to Commissioner Mr. V. K. Duggal Personally on 5.3.1997.
Commissioner ordered inquiry. But enquiry was never was never
conducted.
d) When no action was taken against Shri K. K. Sachan,
Pharmacists who has abused and assaulted RMS a suit was filed
in Tis Hazari Court in April 1997.
e) Advocate advised that suit of common complaint/ grievances
should be bifurcated to two separate cases. One against MCD
and other a criminal case against the pharmacist Shri K. K.
Sachan etc. So this suit was withdrawn.
f) In Oct 1998 a criminal case was filed against Shri K. K. Sachan
U/S, SC/ST Atrocity Act and other IPCs. Along with a legal notice
was sent to Comm. MCD Shri V. K. Duggal by registered post.”
Not satisfied with this response, however, Shri Sachan moved a first appeal on
23.1.07 praying that the matter may be reconsidered and “Appellant be provided with
the requisite information as per ground no. A at earliest.”
Ground No. A referred to above is as follows:
“The main question is whether Dr. R. V. Ahirwal before filing a criminal
complaint case against the appellant K. K. Sachan, as a Pharmacist
regarding the incident dated 8.1.97, has obtained the sanction under
section 197 Cr. P. C. or not.”
Upon this Shri K. D. Akolia, Addl. Commr. (Health & Estt) has in his order of
22.2.07 come to the following curious conclusion:
“It is gathered that Dr. R. V. Ahirwal and Shri Kishan Kumar Sachan both
are employees of the MCD. Dr. R. V. Ahirwal had filed a criminal
complaint against his Pharmacist, Shri Kishan Kumar Sachan under
section 166/ 186/ 189/ 323/ 353/511 IPC and as per section 3 (1) (X) of
SC/ST Act (POA Act) 1989. The matter is subjudicated (sic). Keeping in
view these facts, I am of the view that the PIO has rightly denied the
required information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the
present appeal is rejected.”
This is a curious decision because the case in question is between Dr. R.V.Ahirwal
and Shri K.K. Sachan and is not under any investigation, nor is there any prosecuting
agency that has taken such a plea, nor indeed is there any party classified as offender.
2
This is in fact a private litigation between two parties who are both government officials.
In his prayer before us, Shri Sachan has pleaded as follows:
“It is most humbly prayed that the Impugned Order No. 954/ Addl.
Cmr/ H and Estt. /2007 dated 27.2.2007 may please be set aside and
the appellant be given the information in very clear terms whether
DR. R. V. Ahirwal before instituting a private criminal complaint a
case against the appellant on the basis of incident dated 8.1.1997
has obtained prior sanction under section 197 Cr. PC.”
In her response dated 17.7.08 to appeal notice PIO/Director (Hospital Admn) has
submitted as follows:
“The CMO (HQ) has obtained the reply from Dr. R. V. Ahirwal, which is
enclosed herewith. On perusal of the reply submitted by Dr. R. V. Ahirwal
and accompanying enclosures, it is evident that no such permission
was obtained by him2. However, Dr. R. V. Ahirwal informed the
incidence to the Commissioner, MCD and Addl. Dir. Health Services
(GD), MCD on 9.1.1997.”
The appeal was heard on 24.7.08. The following are present:
APPELLANT
Shri Krishan Kumar SachanRESPONDENTS
Dr. S. Basu, CMO (HQ) MCD
Dr. Madhu Jain, D.H.A.
Dr. R. V. Ahirwal, NFSH HRH MCD
Appellant Shri Sachan submitted that he had not received a clear answer to his
question whether permission had been taken by Dr. Ahirwal. Dr. Ahirwal who appeared
after the hearing submitted that although he had submitted a complaint to M.C.D. he had
not sought permission for initiating any preliminary prosecution against Shri K. K.
Sachan.
DECISION NOTICE
It is clear that information sought by the appellant in his application of 20.12.06,
was replied on 15.1.07, in the very initial response of the Director (Hospital Admn) by
conveying to him that there was “no record whatsoever w.r.t. the case is available at the
2
Emphasis ours
3
Hudson Line Maternity Home.”3 This decision has been confirmed in the response to the
appeal notice from PIO/Director HA, as quoted above, with our emphasis. A copy of this
response is hereby provided to appellant Shri K. K. Sachan, in clarification. With this
the appeal stands disposed of.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
24.7.2008
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
24.7.2008
3
Highlighted by us in the full quote above
4