CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01056 dated 14-11-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri S.C. Sharma
Respondent: Dy. Commissioner of Police (East)
FACTS
By an application of 1-3-07 Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate of Patiala
House Court, New Delhi applied to the Commissioner of Police, Police Hqrs.
seeking the following information:
“A. What is the present status of the complaint against the
SHO, Krishna Nagar, and the Superdar Shri Harbans
Mehta and whether this matter has been closed and if so
what is the outcome of the enquiry.
B. That this matter is also pending in the court of M. M. Dr.
Archna Sinha, Karkardooma Court and the summons
were issued against the Superdar, Harbans Mehta
through SHO, Krishna Nagar, by M.M. for the last two
years, however SHO Krishna Nagar has failed to produce
the Superdar, Harbans Mehta as the “Summons Cells”
failed to sent the summons to SHO Krishna Nagar.
These Summonses were sent by the Naib Court attached
to the court of Dr. Archna Sinha, M. M. Karkardooma
Court.
C. Whether it is a fact that this matter was widely reported in
various newspapers particularly in Times of India East
Delhi Plus dated 28.8.2001, Copy enclosed as Annexure-
E and if so what is the status of investigation in this
matter by the Vigilance Department.
D. What is the procedure for sending summons through
“Summons Cell” of Delhi Police, in East Delhi and
whether any enquiry has been conducted as to how the
summons could not be served on the Superdar through
SHO Krishna Nagar, through Summons Cell?”
To this he received a response from DCP (East) on 13-4-2007, who
received the application on 15-3-07, as follows:-
“B. The case FIR No. 235/95 u/s 379/304A IPC, PS Krishna
Nagar is pending trial in the court of Smt. Dr. Archana
Singh, MM, Karkardooma Courts. During the last two
years from 25.10.04 to 12.12.06, five Summons/ Bailable1
Warrants have been issued from the concerned court
against Harbans Lal Mehta (Superdar) and other public
witnesses. The detail of summons/ bailable warrants is as
under:-
(i) For 18.2.05 summon was issued to execute
through IO and was not served as the IO HC
Swarn Singh has died.
(ii) For 4.06.058 summon was issued to execute
through SHO. The same was sent to PS
Shakarpur as the address of the superdar falls in
the jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur and was not got
served, as the address given as incorrect.
(iii) For 12.8.05 bailable warrant was issued to execute
through IO and was not got served due to incorrect
address.
(iv) For 14.12.05 Summon was issued to execute
through summon cell but was not got served due
to incorrect address.
(v) For 8.5.06 summon was issued to execute through
summon cell but was not got served due to
incorrect address.
(vi) For 16.5.07 Summon was issued to execute
through SHO but has not been served due to
incorrect address.
Further, SHO/ Krishna Nagar has not received any summon to
get it served on Harbans Lal Mehta.
D. The summonses received in the Summons Cell/ East
Distt are marked to process Servers. The Process
Server then gets it executed and gives his report thereon
which is then sent to the concerned court. The summons
that are marked to SHO are executed by the concerned
SHO himself.”
Not satisfied with this response, however, Shri S.C. Sharma moved his
first appeal 3-5-07 with the following plea:
“Incomplete and misleading and the complete information has
not been furnished in respect of action taken against SHO,
Krishna Nagar for release of uninsured vehicle involved in the
fatal accident.”
He also contended that no information has been supplied in respect of
letter sent by Addl. Session Judge to DCP (East). This appeal was examined
2
by Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Jt. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range
who came to the following conclusion:
“Having examined the material available on file, it is found that
the PIO/ East District vide letter No. 1465/ Info. Cell/ East
District dated 8.5.2007 has subsequently informed the appellant
that no information is available on above mentioned two points
as the record pertaining to complaint of 2001 has already been
destroyed in the year 2005. However, I am forwarding copy of
complaint dated 20.6.01 of DCP/ Vigilance (PIO/Vig.) for
furnishing information available in her office.”
Appellant’s prayer before us in 2nd appeal is as below:-
“The appellant hereby submits the present appeal and to
request that an early hearing may be fixed in the above
matter.”
He also referred to an order by Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Addl. Session
Judge and Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, a copy of which was
enclosed and which the learned judge has come to the following conclusion:
“I have perused the appeal, heard the appellant in person and in
view of the above discussion, there is no information left to be
supplied to appellant. Hence, information required by him
cannot be supplied. Hence, applicant is not maintainable and is
hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be given to the appellant
free of cost. File be consigned to the Record room.”
The appeal was heard on 26-12-08. The following are present.
Appellant.
Shri S.C. Sharma
Respondents
Shri Sushil Kumar, Inspector, Addl. SHO, Krishna Nagar.
Shri R. S. Chauhan, ACP/ Division (East).
In view of the response given to his application appellant Shri S.C.
Sharma was asked what further information in light of the order of 1st
Appellate Authority on the destruction of records, was now sought by him. He
submitted that the information given by the CPIO was misleading in that the
summons served were, in fact, sent to the correct address but yet not served
on the owner of Mehta Enterprises. He submitted a copy of the statement
made before the MM by the same party in which he has given the same
address. He also submitted that although he has received a letter of 21-6-07
from Ms. Shalini Singh, PIO, Vigilance that no enquiry was conducted in this
3
office on his complaint by Inspector Shri Chaudhry in the year 2001, he
contended that such an enquiry was conducted as reported in the court.
DECISION NOTICE
Having heard the parties and examined the records we find that the
information sought by appellant Shri Sharma has, in fact, been provided to
him in the very first instance by the PIO concerned. In his appeals both first
and second he sought further information as is also apparent from his
arguments before us. If, however, he suspects that the summons could have
been served and were not served on grounds of bribery and corruption it is
open to him to make a complaint accordingly before the authorised officer of
the Delhi Police. Such a complaint cannot constitute a request for information
since the information is quite clearly that the summons has not been served.
Similarly, as clarified by Shri R.S. Chauhan, ACP (East Division) that so far as
the Vigilance is concerned no such enquiry was conducted. If such enquiry
was conducted by some other Division appellant Shri Sharma has already
been provided with the results of that enquiry which answers point (a) of his
application.
The responses to the questions asked have now been received by
appellant. This appeal is therefore now unsustainable. If he has further
complaints on the manner of disposal of his complaints before the Police, this
Commission is not the appropriate authority to entertain the same and he may
make the complaint to the appropriate authority in the Delhi Police or before
the Addl. Session Court as the case may be.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
26-12-2008
4
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
26-12-2008
5