CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00292 dated 15.1.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Ram Niwas Jindal
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP) Nand Nagari
Decision announced: 19.8.2009
Facts
:
By an application of 20.9.07 Shri Ram Niwas Jindal of Baghpat (UP)
applied to the DCP Nand Nagari seeking the following information:
“1. Please clarify, why and on what grounds you are not giving a
hearing on the above referred case and not dealing with the
case.2. Please clarify, why there is extremely minute number of
female employees, and maximum number is of male
employees, when this office is related to Crime Against
Women.3. Please clarify whether there is a stipulation in law of your
office that your employees can threaten or warn any party?
If yes, Please explain the relevant rule portion where under
your employees have been empowered to threaten or warn
any party.4. That whether respondents are unaware of any legal action in
the above referred case? That the respondents take me
alongwith them, in the above case, to assist them and keep
me with them, yet in spite of this they misbehave with me.
Please clarify under what rules they misbehave with me.5. Is there any objection to any party bringing any person with
him for assisting him? If yes, then I may be provided
information regarding that rule.6. Is there any rule prevalent in your office that instead of
hearing the cases, registered in your office, personally, these
will not be heard by you and just passed on to your
subordinates?7. Are you aware that we cannot obtain information /
documents from your office under the RTI Act. If yes, then
please clarify that under the RTI Act what type of information
/ documents cannot be obtained by us.8. Please clarify what action is taken against your employees,
against whom a complaint is lodged either with your good
self or with the Commissioner of Police.”1
On not receiving a reply within 48 hours, Shri Ram Niwas Jindal moved an
appeal before Sh. Y. S. Dadwal, Commissioner of Police specifically with the
following plea:“a) That respondents be given extremely strict orders to provide
complete information sought by the appellant in his
application dated 20.9.2007.b) That based on the above facts, action u/s 20 sub sec. (1) be
taken against all concerned respondents and respondents
be ordered to provided to the appellant relief @ Rs. 250/- per
day from the date of receipt of letter dated 20.9.07 till date of
providing complete information.c) That the appellant has filed the present appeal before this
Commission due to the dictatorial attitude of the
respondents. It is further requested that the appellant be
ordered to be provided with a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
by the Delhi Police so that in future they do not exhibit such
a dictatorial attitude to a citizen who files a request for
seeking information under RTI Act, 2005″By his order of 5.11.07 Shri Ajay Kashyap, Jt. Commissioner of Police and
Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:“I have examined the relevant records available in the file. After
going through all the relevant records I find that the appellant had
submitted an application dated 20.9.07 addressed to Dy. Police
Commissioner. Old Police Station, Nand Nagri, Delhi for seeking
information within 48 hours related to complaint filed by Smt.
Shikha Gupta under RTI Act 2005, PIO/North East District has
clarified that since there is no specific threat to the life and liberty,
therefore, Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act is not attracted. Moreover,
PIO/North-East District has given tee ply vide letter No.
2323/R/ACP/OPS/NE dated 15.10.07 to the appellant on his
application dated 20.9.2007 well within the time limit prescribed
under RTI Act, 2005. The appellant may request for a copy if the
same has not been received, from concerned office.”This has brought Shri Jindal in second appeal before us with the following
prayer:“a) That Order dated 4.11.07 issued by First Appellate
Authority may be set aside and respondents may be
strictly directed to provide urgently the information
sought by the appellant vide his appeal dated 20.9.2007
within the time limited mandated and it may also be2
ordered that respondent be provided photo copies of
the documents demanded by him without any further
delay.b) That the respondent has failed to provide the
information / documents within the time frame mandated
under sec. 20 of RTI Act 2005. Therefore, action under
relevant section be taken against the respondent and
appellant be granted relief @ Rs. 250/- per day w.e.f. the
date of application i.e. 20.9.07 till the date the
documents are provided, after recovering the same from
the respondent or in the alternative a lump sum amount
of Rs. 25000/- be ordered to be provided to the
appellant.”The appeal was heard by videoconference on 19.8.09. The following are
present:Respondents
Sh. Lala Ram Meena, A.C.P.Sh. Arun Kumar, S.I.
Although arrangement has been made to hear the appeal through video
conference at NIC Studio Baghpat and appellant Sh. Ram Niwas Jindal had been
informed by Notice dated 7.8.2009 regarding the hearing, he has opted not to be
present.Shri Lala Ram Meena ACP submitted that a similar request by the same
appellant Sh. Jindal has been heard by us in appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01516
and dismissed on 24.4.09. He also submitted a copy of a reply dated 15.10.07
sent to Shri Jindal in the present case. This letter informs Shri Jindal as follows:“In this connection it is intimated that Complainant Smt. Shikha
Gupta r/o F-394, Gali No. 7, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-94 has given in
writing under Right to Information Act 2005 that no
information/document concerning her complaint filed with the Crime
Against Women Cell, be provided to any one. Accordingly, no copy
of any document can be provided to you under Sec. 11 of Right to
Information Act, 2005.”DECISION NOTICE
3
We agree with respondents that no case of life & liberty is made out in the
present case, since what appellant is asking for is information to be used through
the normal judicial process of which he would obtain a copy, if required, at the
appropriate time. Besides, in our decision on File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01516,
we had concluded as follows:We find that the order of JCP Shri Ajay Kashyap of 29.10.07 is
defective in that it simply dismisses the appeal on the ground that
the original application had not been received, without caring to
ensure that a response was given, even if that of refusal under the
law. Now, however, we find that the question raised in the original
application stands answered as per the Act and there is no second
appeal before us on the orders of JCP in regard to that. Moreover,
in light of the third party Ms Shikha Gupta’s objection to disclosure
u/s 11 (1) the information sought is clearly exempt from disclosure
u/s 8 sub-section (1) (g). Under the circumstances, there is no
further need for this Commission to intervene in this matter. The
appeal stands dismissed.
We cannot find any fresh reason for intervention in this matter and this
appeal is also, therefore, dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
19.8.2009
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
19.8.2009
4