CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00870 dated 19-8-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri S. C. Sharma
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) Vigilance
FACTS
By an application of 1.3.2007 Shri S. C. Sharma an advocate of Patiala
House Court, Delhi applied to Shri K. K. Paul, IPS, Commissioner of Police ,
Delhi seeking the following information:
A. What is the status of the above complaint and day to day
progress made in investigating this matter and outcome
of the vigilance inquiry by Police.
B. Particulars of the instruction of the Delhi Police/ DOPT
and CVC under which the complainants/ representation in
vigilance matters are not even acknowledged and the
complainant is kept in the dark about the outcome of the
vigilance enquiry made by the police.
C. Number of vigilance complainants received against the
SHO and Staff of the Police Station, Mayur Vihar, during
the last 3 years and how many vigilance complaints have
This information related to a complaint made by Dr. C. M. Bhan, Senior
Consultant, RML hospital, Delhi. To this Shri S. C. Sharma received a
response from Shri M. R. Gothwal, PIO, Vigilance Delhi dated 16.4.’07,
received by the latter on 15.3.’07 from Police HQ, as follows:-
“It is stated that the complaint filed by Dr. C. M. Bhan, r/o A-102,
Manas Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi 110091 was
dealt by the office of ACP/PG Cell East Disst., Delhi. A total
number of 157 complaints were received in this office against
the staff of the Police Station Mayur Vihar during the last 3 years
i.e. 1.1.2004 to till date). 12 complaints were enquired by this
branch and remaining complaints were sent to concerned Distt/
Unit for appropriate action. Outcome of these enquiries were
not sent to the complainant, as they have not requested for the
same.”
Not satisfied Shri S. C. Sharma moved his first appeal on 3.5.2007
specifically on the following grounds:-
1
“1. That the information furnished by Delhi Police vide letter
dated 16.4.2007 copy enclosed is incomplete and
misleading and the complete information has not been
furnished in respect of action taken against S. I. & SHO,
Mayur Vihar, on application given by dr. C. M. Bhan to
Shri K. K. Paul Police commissioner personally.
2. That no information has been supplied in respect of the
letter sent by Dr. C. M. Bhan to the police commissioner
in respect of the seepage problems in his flat and
outcome of the vigilance inquiry against S. I. and SHO
and the reasons why the complainant has been kept in
the dark of the fate of the vigilance inquiry.”
However, Shri R. P. Upadhyaya, First Appellate Authority found as
follows in his order of 16.5.2007.
“As per the records, the PIO/ Vigilance has provided you all the
information available with him, that could be provided under the
provisions of the RTI Act. You can approach the office of PIO/
East District, situated at Vishwas Nagar, Shahadra for
information regarding the complaint of Dr. C. M. Bhan, referred
to by you in your application, as the complaint was dealt with by
that office. There is no fresh grounds in the appeal to interfere
with the orders of the PIO/ Vigilance.”
Appellant’s prayer before us in his second appeal, therefore, is as
below:-
“That having failed to get the correct information from Delhi
Police and the failure of the CPIO and the Appellate
authority in furnishing the requisite information which I
have sought in public interest u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005. I
am preferring second appeal u/s 19 (3) of the RTI Act 2005.”
The appeal was heard on 5-12-08. The following are present.
Appellant
Shri S. C. Sharma.
Respondent
Shri Mahendra Nath Tiwari, DCP/ Vig.
The request for information was examined point wise with both parties.
It is found that only question at C has received a complete answer. Shri M. N.
Tiwari, DCP, Vigilance submitted that the complaint of Dr Bhan had been
transferred to ACP, East District, Delhi. He was not able to answer why in
that case the RTI application was also not similarly transferred as mandated
under section 6 sub-section (3). Shri M. N. Tiwari did indeed explain the
2
particulars of the practice followed on receipt of complaints and
representations. However, this has not been provided in the PIO’s response
to the RTI application.
DECISION NOTICE
From the above it is clear that only one out of the three questions
posed by appellant Shri S. C. Sharma have, in fact, been answered in full.
CPIO Shri M. N. Tiwari, DCP, Vigilance is therefore, directed to provide
answer to questions A and B to appellant within 10 working days of the
date of issue of this decision notice.
If the complaint of Dr. Bhan has indeed been transferred to the ACP,
East District, because CPIO has not availed the opportunity to transfer the
RTI application to that office u/s 6 (3 (i), he will now himself obtain the
information now sought and provide this together with the remaining
information to appellant Shri S. C. Sharma. Appeal is thus allowed. There
will be no cost.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
5-12-2008
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
5-12-2008
3