Madras High Court orders disclosure of assets statements of IAS officers under RTI

12th July 2011

A two judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice D.Murugesan
and Justice K.K.Sasidharan has ordered the State Government to disclose the
assets statements of IAS officers sought under the Right to Information act,
2005 (case no. WA 551/2010). This order overturns the ealier single Judge
order of the Madras High Court which upheld the order of the State
Information Commission baring disclosure of assets of IAS officers, on an
RTI application seeking inspection of assets statements of 10 IAS officers
of Tamil Nadu Government.

The RTI application was filed in February 2009 with the Public department,
where the applicant had sought inspection of assets statements of the Chief
Secretary of Tamil Nadu and Secretaries of 9 other departments. He was
refused information citing section 8(1)(j), which gives exemption to
personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or
interest. The appellate authority too upheld this argument.

The applicant then moved the State Information Commission against the PIO's
and the Appellate Authority's decision. The State Information Commission too
upheld that these documents are exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the Act and
that since they are in sealed covers, they cannot be considered as being
“available” with the Public Authority.

The applicant then moved the Madras High Court challenging the State
Information Commission's decision on the grounds that the State Information
Commission is trying to set different yard sticks for IAS and non-IAS
government servants, by earlier ordering that that the assets statements of
Government Servants, who do not belong to IAS cadre, are public documents,
but giving the opposite judgment when the issue was raised with respect to
IAS officers. The applicant had also cited that the CIC has repeatedly
ordered that assets details of Government Servants are to be made public.

Today's order came on appeal against the order of the single judge (case no.
26223 of 2009), who heard the writ petition and dismissed it in February
2010, saying that there is already a procedure to open sealed covers
containing assets statements and hence there is no need to make the assets
statements of IAS officers public.

It is interesting to note that the Karnataka Information Commission, Madhya
Pradesh Information Commission and Punjab Information Commission had also
earlier ordered that assets statements are to be disclosed under RTI.

With this judgment, it is now firmly established that assets details of IAS
officers are completely under the public domain and can be accessed under
the Right to Information act, 2005. A copy of the order is awaited.

The RTI application filed, order of the State Information Commission and
order of the single judge bench of the Madras High Court and other documents
can be downloaded from http://www.box.net/shared/2zkeqxgnqs

For more details please contact

*Madhav – 9840327303*

--
V.GOPALAKRISHNAN
ACTIVST

A LANDMARK DECISION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN FAVOUR OF OBCs

A LANDMARK DECISION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN FAVOUR OF OBCs

(To be followed by UPSC, IIT, IIM, AIEEE, States etc.)

MERIT OBC CANDIDATES SELECTED IN UNRESERVED (General) SEATS CAN NOT BE ADJUSTED AGAINST 27%

RESERVATION QUOTA EVEN IF THEY GET ALLOTMENT OF SEAT/CADRE IN RESERVED SEATS: SUPREME COURT

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5505-5507 of 2003

PETITIONER: Union of India & Anr, RESPONDENT: Satya Prakash & Ors, DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/2006,

BENCH: H.K. Sema & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J U D G M E N T with Civil Appeal No. 7004 of 2003

H.K.SEMA, J

These appeals have been preferred by the Union of India aggrieved by the judgment and orders dated

10.9.2002 (in Civil Appeal Nos. 5505-07/2003) and 29.4.2003 (in Civil Appeal No. 7004/2003) of the Division Bench of

the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3561/99, 3562/99, 867/2000 and 2751/2000 respectively. For

brevity, we are taking facts from Civil Appeal No. 5505 of 2003. The respondent belongs to Other Backward Class

(OBC). Reservations were made for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category candidates in Civil Services

Examination (CSE) Rules, 1996. The respondent appeared from the reserved quota of OBC. The Union Public Service

Commission (Commission) r ecommended in all 739 candidates, out of which 2 candidates were withheld and 737

candidates wer e recommended one to one for appointment against the vacant posts from various categ ories. The

following chart would make clear the manner in which the different categories of jobs were to be alloc ated to

different categories of candidates.

Categ ory/Cadre IAS IFS IPS Gr.A Gr.B Total

Total General 38 07 48 157 133 383

OBC 20 03 25 72 54 174

SC 12 03 15 56 39 125

ST 06 01 08 23 19 57

Total 76 14 96 308 245 739

The chart shows that against the OBC category total 174 candidates wer e recommended for 174

vacancies. In these appeals we are concerned only with OBC category candidates. From the OBC categ ory, three

candidates were included in the general merit list. 36 OBC category candidates were also included in the general

merit list on the recommendation of the Commission. However, a preference was given fr om the relaxed quota,

reserved for the OBC category candidates. Despite 174 vacancies earmarked for the OBC category candidates, and

the candidates wer e recommended for 174 vacancies, only 138 OBC category candidates were provided with the job

and the r est 36 OBC category candidates (respondents) had been denied j ob. By way of illustration, a candidate

whose name figured at Sl. No. 620 in the merit list had been provided with a job but the r espondent herein, who was

at Sl. No. 606 in the merit list, had been denied the job.

We have heard Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned S enior counsel for the Union of India, Mr. L. Nageswar Rao,

Sr. Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Gopal Prasad, learned counsel for the r espondents.

The principal contention of Mr. T.S. Doabia is that since there were only 174 vacancies in the OBC

category in various services and posts, certain candidates belonging to that category and recommended by the

Commission for appointment against the vacancies for OBC category candidates in services/posts could not be

allocated to any services/posts due to lack of vacancies. It is his further contention that the quota reserved for the

OBC from the r elaxed standard exhausted due to the prefer ence opted by the OBC candidates who wer e

recommended by the Commission from open category i. e. on merit.

Per contra, it is contended by Mr. Nageswar Rao, Ranjit Kumar and Gopal Prasad that such submission

is contrary to the note appended to Rule 2 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 1996 (in short the Rules) which

says that if he/she is not allotted to any one of the services/posts for which he/she has indicated preference, he/she

shall be allotted to any of the remaining services/posts in which there ar e vacancies after allocation of all the

candidates who can be allocated to a service/post in accordance with their pref erences.

It is their further contention that the stand taken by the Union of India also runs to the teeth of the

proviso to sub-Rule 2 of Rule 16 of the Rules which says that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the

Scheduled Tribes or the Other Backward Classes who have been r ecommended by the Commission without resorting

to the relaxed standard, referred to in the Rules, shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for the

Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other backward classes. They further contended that the

reserved category candidate entitled to service/post on the basis of his/her own merit in the general

category will have the option of his preference kept reserved for the reserved category but while

computing the percentage of reservation, he/she will be deemed to have been computed as an open

category candidate (general candidate) and not as a reserved category candidate.

The sole question that revolves ar ound for determination is, as to whether those OBC candida tes, who

were selected on merit and were placed in the list of open category candidates could still for the purpose of

placement (preference) be consider ed to be OBC candidates thereby exhausting the quota reserved for relaxed OBC

candidates from allocation of service.

In our view, the pr esent controversy is no mor e res-integra in view of the judgment of this Court in

the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. This Court at (SCC p. 735, para 811) held as under: "In this connection it is well to r emember that the r eservations under Article 16 (4) do not oper ate like a

communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in

the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for

Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates."

In the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745, a Constitution Bench of this Court

considered the question of appointment and promotion and roster points vis-à-vis reservation and held at S CC p. 750,

para 4 as under:”

When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the r oster indicates the

reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the

members of reserved categories and the candidates belonging to the g eneral category are not entitled to be

considered for the r eserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category can didates can compete for the nonreserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into

consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India permits the

State Government to make any provision for the r eservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class

of citizens which, in the opinion of the State if not adequately represented in the S ervices under the State. It is,

therefore, incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion that the Backward Class/Classes for which the

reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State S ervices. While doing so the State Government may

take the total population of a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State S ervices. When the State

Government after doing the necessary exercise make the reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts

to be reserved for the said Backward Class then the percentag e has to be followed strictly. The prescribed

percentage cannot be varied or changed simply because some of the members of the Backward Class have already

been appointed/promoted against the general seats. As mentioned above the r oster point which is reser ved for a

Backward Class has to be filled by way of appointment/promotion of the member of the said class. No general

category candidate can be appointed against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the Backward Class. The fact

that considerable number of members of a Backward Class have been appointed/promoted against general seats in

the State Services may be a relevant factor for the State Government to review the question of continuing

reservation for the said class but so long as the instructions/rules p roviding certain percentag e of r eservations for the

Backward Classes ar e operative the same have to be followed. Despite any number of appointees/promotees

belonging to the Backward Classes against the general category posts the given percentage has to be provided in

addition."

In Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 SCC 684 it has been held by this Court (at page SCC

705) that while determining the number of posts r eserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the candidates

belonging to reserved category but selected/promoted on the rule of merit (and not by virtue of rule of reservation)

shall not be counted as reserved categ ory candidates.

This Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 253 after considering the variou s

decisions of this Court, as referred to above, has come to the conclusion at SCC p.261 -262 as under:

" In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is

irresistible that a student who is en-titled to be admi tted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved

category cannot be consider ed to be admitted against seats r eserved for reserved categ ory. But at the same time the

provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be

placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less, meritorious reserved category candidates. The

aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the r eserved category who

would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges

which have been kept reserved for reserved categ ory and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category

candidates should be considered and they be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In

other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have

the option of taking admission in the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved

for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been

admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate." (emphasis supplied)

It will be noticed that the decision in Ritesh R. Sah (supra) was render ed on 15th February, 1996. CSE

Rules, 1996 were notified on 14.12.1996. That is the fall out of the decision of this Court in Ritesh R. Sah (supra).

The relevant rules for our considerati on for this purpose are Rule 2 and Rule 16 of the Rules. Rule 2

and Rule 16 read as under:

" 2. A candidate shall be r equired to indicate in his/her application form for the Main Examination

his/her order of preferences for various services/posts for which he/she would like to be considered for appointment

in case he/she is recommended for appointment by Union Public Commission.

A candidate who wishes to be considered for IAS/IPS shall be required to indicate in his/her

application if he/she would like to be consider ed for allotment to the State to which he/she belongs in case he/she is

appointed to the IAS/IPS.

NOTE: - The candidate is advised to be very car eful while indicating preferences for various services/posts. In this

connection, attention is also invited to Rule 18 of the Rules. The candidate is also advised to indicate all the

services/posts in the order of preference in his/her application form. In case he/she does not give any preference for

any service/posts, it will be assumed that he/she has no specific preference for those services. If he/she is not

allotted to any one of the services/posts for which he/she has indicated prefer ence, he/she shall be allotted to any of

the remaining services/posts in which there are vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated

to a service/post in accordance with their prefer ences. (emphasis supplied) 16. (i) After interview, the candidates will be arranged by the commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the

aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the Main Examination (written examination as well as

interview) and in that order so many candidates as ar e found by the Commission to be qualified at the examination

shall be recommended for appointment up to the number of unreserved vacancies decided to be filled on the result

of the examination.

(ii) The candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or the other Backward Classes

may to the extent of the number of vacancies r eserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and the

Other Backward Classes be recommended by the Commission by a r elaxed standard, subject to the fitness of these

candidates for selection to the services.

Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the other Backward

Classes who have been recommended by the Commission without r esorting to the relaxed standard referred to in this

sub-rule, shall not be adjusted against the vacancies r eserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the

Other Backward Classes. (emphasis supplied)

Note appended to Rule 2 is crystal clear and unambiguous. It shows that if a candidate is not allotted

to any one of the services/posts for which he/she has indicated preference, he/she shall be allotted to any of the

remaining services/posts in which ther e ar e vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to a

service/post in accordance with their prefer ences.

Further, proviso to sub-Rule 2 of Rule 16 makes it further clear in unambiguous terms that the candidates belonging

to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the Other Backward Classes who have been r ecommended by the

Commission without resorting to the relaxed standard (i.e. on merits), referred to in this sub-Rule, shall not be

adjusted against the vacancies r eserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other backward

classes.

This position has been made crystal clear in Ritesh R. Sah (supra) as referred to above that

while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit, will have the option

(preference) of taking admission in the college where specified number of seats have been kept reserved

for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been

admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate.

By way of illustration, a reserved category candidate, recommended by the Commission

without resorting to relaxed standard (i.e. on merit) did not get his own preference 'say IAS' in the

merit/open category. For that, he may opt a preference from the reserved category. But simply because

he opted a preference from the reserved category does not exhaust quota of OBC category candidate

selected under relaxed standard. Such preference opted by the OBC candidate who has been

recommended by the Commission without resorting to the relaxed standard (i.e. on merit) shall not be

adjusted against the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward

Classes. This is the mandate of proviso to sub-Rule 2 of Rule 16.

In other words, while a reserved category candidate recommended by the Commission

without resorting to the relaxed standard will have the option of preference from the reserved category

recommended by the Commission by resorting to relaxed standard, but while computing the

quota/percentage of reservation he/she will be deemed to have been allotted seat as an open cat egory

candidate (i.e. on merit) and not as a reserved category candidate recommended by the Commission by

resorting to relaxed standard.

If a candidate of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Class, who has been

recommended by the Commission without resorting to the relaxed standard could not get his/her own

preference in the merit list, he/she can opt a preference from the reserved category and in such process

the choice of preference of the reserved category recommended by resorting to the relaxed standard will

be pushed further down but shall be allotted to any of the remaining services/posts in which there are

vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to a service/post in accordance with

their preference.

In the present case, the Commission recommended one to one vacancy, altog ether 737 candidates

against 737 posts. Against the OBC categ ory 174 candidates were recommended against 174 posts. By opting a

preference, the quota r eserved for OBC candidate does not exhaust. There are still vacancies after allocation of all

the candidates in order of prefer ence who can be allotted to any of the r emaining services/posts in which there ar e

vacancies after allocation of all the candidates who can be allotted to the servic es/posts in accordance with their

preference. This is the mandate of the note appended to Rule 2.

At the risk of repetition, the Commission recommended 737 candidates against 737 posts. So far OBC

category is concerned, 174 candidates were recommended against 174 posts. We are totally at a loss as to what had

happened to those remaining services/posts after allocation of services to all the candidates in terms of their

preferences. We say no more.

In the view that we have taken, we do not see any infirmity whatsoever in the orders impugned

passed by the High Court, which would warrant our interference. These appeals are devoid of merit and are

dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 10,000/- for each of the respondents. The appellant is directed to

allot jobs to the respondents within a period of one month from today.

Memorandum To National Commission for Scheduled Caste

Dr. P. L. Punia, Chairman
National Commission for Scheduled Caste,
Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market,
New Delhi 110 003

Respected sir,

We are writing to you with deep distress about the plight of a six-years-old scheduled caste girl Kamlesh, now nine from Trauali Jhanauti Village, Dist Mathura, Uttra Pradesh that she was thrashed into a burning fire by a Thakur family on April 29, 2008. The incident happened while Kamlesh and her eight months pregnant mother, Manju, passed through the road in front of a Thakur Family, going for toilet in an open field. Kamlesh suffered 80% burnt and still suffering, her right hand is crippled, and skins all over body are cracking. She needs immediate medical attention in order to save her life. The court case is closed without any justice to the victim.

A civil society fact finding team revisited Kamlesh and stocked the situation in the month of December 2010 and found that health condition of Kamlesh is still critical and needs immediate medical attention. The court case was closed without fair trial; the accused is released without punishment. No adequate compensation was given to the victim and family.

Therefore, we the civil society signed below would like to approach National Commission for Scheduled Caste with following requests:

1. That the commission may constitute a fact finding team to look into the incident, the present condition of the victim and how trial of the case of conducted and closed.

2. That the Commission may take up the case in High Court as the sessionon court has unfairly acquainted accused.

3. That the Commission may instruct the concerned government and department to provide immediate medical treatment which might require series of specialized surgery.

4. That the Commission may instruct for her future education facilities.

5. That the Commission may instruct Uttra Pradesh Government to provide safety to Kamlesh and family as they live in fear of being attack any time, where the case is reviewed.

Sincerely,

Dr John Dayal
Member National Integration Council,
Government of India (9811021072) Madhu Chandra
Regional Secretary
All India Christian Council (9716004939)

Sarita Bhai
Coordinator – SC/ST Justice Initiative
Human Rights Law Network

HS Mehra
Retired Public Persecutor,
Govt of Haryana (9810643874)

Karuna Dayal
Coordinator – Anti-Human Trafficking Initiative
Human Rights Law Network

Copies to:

1. Chairperson, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights Protection.
2. Chairman, National Commission for Human Rights
3. Chairman, UP State Commission for Scheduled Caste
4. Hon’ble Governor, Uttra Pradesh
5. Hon’ble Chief Minister, Uttra Pradesh
6. UP State Commission for Human Rights

Enclosed:

1. Brief Description of Incident
2. Copy of FIR
3. Copy of Judgment Order
4. Copies of Medical Report

Shri Jawahar Lal of Najafgarh, New Delhi applied to the DCP (SW) District seeking the following information:

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00929 dated 14-9-2007

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19

Appellant: Shri Jawahar Lal

Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) SW

FACTS

By an application of 7-11-06 Shri Jawahar Lal of Najafgarh, New Delhi

applied to the DCP (SW) District seeking the following information:

“I want to seek some information which concerns my life and

liberty including to my family. Required fee have been

deposited as per rules. Required information are as under:-

1. The reasons for not registering the case on 8.10.2006 on

my complaint even when my statement was recorded and

eye witnesses were also examined by the SHO and ACP,

Najafgarh, be informed.

2. Is the photographer not available in P.S. Najafgarh for

investigation purposes because the SHO directed me to

get the photographs prepared of the scene of crime for

which I paid Rs. 200/-.

3. Why the case property in case FIR No. 966/2006 is not

being taken into police possession? Up to what period of

time will it be expected to be collected?

4. Date wise progress of investigation in case FIR No.

966/2006 P. S. Najafgarh may be supplied along with the

complete certified case diaries of the case and I may also

be permitted to inspect the work, document, records in

file.

5. Certified copy of my statement on which case FIR No.

966/2006 has been registered in P. S. Najafgarh may be

supplied to me which bears my signature.

6. For what reasons Sec 506 I.P.C. was not added in FIR

when there is clear cut threat to kill in the contents of the

FIR No. 966/2006 P. S. Najafgarh.

7. Column No. 7 of the FIR No. 966/2006 P. s. Najafgarh be

completed.

8. On 9.10.2006 at about 12.00 noon Shri Lal Singh Yadav

intended to dispossess me of my land and thereby

interfered with the enjoyment of my rights over my land.

1Shri Lal Singh Yadav along with four persons insulted me

and my son Gagan Singh by uttering ugly words relating

to my caste in full public view in public place with the

intention to grab my land by force regarding which PCR

was called and local police was also informed but the

case was registered on 25.10.2006 in the police station

despite of several requests to SHO Najafgarh. Why the

case was not registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 up to 25.10.2006 and after

registration of the case why nobody has been arrested in

this case? It is the high handedness of the police or

some influential persons are involved in it and

pressurizing the witnesses. I may be permitted to inspect

the case file and the certified case diaries may be

supplied to me.

9. Under whose direction the case was not registered up to

25.10.2006 and under whose direction was it registered

alter on?

10. was any enquiry conducted by you or by any subordinate

to you in the above mentioned case if yes, the name of

the enquiry officers and its detailed outcome with date

may please be supplied.

11. Accused persons are not being arrested in the above

mention cases and are also threatening us to leave our

residence etc as well as are pressurizing the witnesses.

If any untoward incident happens to us, who will be

responsible fir it.

12. Regarding registration of a case under the SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is there any

disciplinary or panel proceeding under contemplation for

initial refusal for the registration of the case by SHO

Najafgarh.

13. DD entries of 8.10.2006 and 9.10.2006 of the calls

received from PCR in my case be supplied to me. With

their disposal reports by the IO’s.

14. DD entry of the PCR call received on 12.10.2006 which

was attended by ASI Bhupinder Singh may also be

supplied along with its disposal by him and the certified

copy of the statement he recorded himself on which the

respectable persons signed as witnesses and found the4

call made by Lal Singh to PCR to be a false call.”

To this he received a response within 2 days from DCP (SW) dated 9-

11-2006 answering each of the questions point-wise:-

2“1. The incident had taken place in the late night of

8.10.2006 and after some formal inquiries the FIR was

lodged on 9.10.2006 vide FIR No. 966/06. Hence there

was no delay on the case registration.

2. The I.O. got the photographs of the scene by a private

photographer and the amount was also paid by the I.O.

No one asked you to take photographs and if you had

done so, it was on your own accord.

3. The case is being investigated under close supervision of

SHO & SDPO. All that is necessary for the purpose of

investigation is being done. You cannot direct the

investigating agency about each and every step that has

been taken or is to be done.

4. Since the case is pending investigation, the requisite

certified copies of our diary are not to be provided in view

of sec. 8(1) (h) of RTI Act. As regards the inspection the

same is also exempted under the same section as it can

impede the process of investigation. Hence the same

cannot be allowed at this stage.

5. The FIR was lodged on your own statement and the

copy of the FIR has already been provided to you. Now

the said statement has become part of the investigation

due to some noting by police officials/E.O. etc. Hence the

same is also exempted under sec. 8(1) (b).

6. The investigation of the case FIR No. 966/06 is in

progress. The enquiry investigations will be added

during the investigation, if required.

7. The question pertains to suspects and unknown accused

only. The whole prosecution will be completed before

finalization of challan u/s 173 Cr. P.C.

8. Initially the matter regarding allegation of uttering of ugly

words relating to the caste was inquired by an Inspector

and after that the matter was referred to ACP as only

ACP and above are entitled to investigate such matters

under provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act).

The case was registered after formal inquiries and the

same is under investigation. Arrests are made only when

there is sufficient evidence to prove that offence has been

committed. No other information / inspection can not be

allowed at this stage. The allegations made at this point

are false.

9. As mentioned at Sr. No. 8

310. As mentioned at Sr. No. 8

11. The case is still under investigation. The process of

arrest will be done if the crime is proved. However, the

local police is taking precaution to maintain peace and

provide security in the area. Division and beat staff has

been briefed to ensure that witnesses are not pressurized.

Till now, there is nothing specific regarding threatening of

anybody. However, ACP concerned has been directed to

personally look into this matter.

12. Since, no refusal is found on the part of SHO Najafgarh,

no disciplinary proceedings are required against him.

13. As mentioned at Sr. No. 5

14. The cases are under investigation and requisite

information at this point is a vital part of investigation.

The supply of same can impede the process of

investigation. Hence, the same can not be provided in

view of sec 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005.”

Subsequently, Shri Jawahar Lal sought information on further points in

an application of 26-12-06 to the PIO, DCP (SW) as follows:

“1. According to the information provided to me under RTI

Act by you/ PIO/SWD dated 9.11.2006 it may also be

clarified that:-

(a) Can an Inspector inquire into the matter regarding

allegation of uttering of ugly words relating to the

case as mentioned by you in your report.

(b) Who was that Inspector?

(c) How many days he inquired the matter?

(d) Please let me know the outcome of those formal

inquiries made by him.

2. Please let me know the name of ACP with date to whom

the matter was referred as mention in your intimation

dated 9.11.2006. On which date he visited the place of

occurrence? Were any statements recorded by him on

that day? If yes, supply the copies of those statements.

Was the complainant available on that day or when the

complainant was contacted? Please supply the

statement of the complainant recorded by IO with date.

43. Is it not correct that IO has written false case diaries?

Please either supply the copies of these case diaries with

the statements of PW’s u/s 161 Cr. PC or let me inspect

the case file of the IO.

4. Were threatening calls made by SHO Kirti Nagar Shri Sat

Pal Yadav, from P. S. Kirti Nagar to the complainant on

8.10.2006 in the late hours of night on mobile no.

9811054163 verified by the IO? Will you direct him to

take any action against him or will you protect him also?

5. Why a separate case was not registered on my

complainant dated 22.10.2006 under SC/ST (POA) Act

against Shri Mahaveer Yadav etc who forced me to join

the Panchayat and insulted me in the Panchayat with the

intention to humiliate me and to make the compromise of

their choice and threatened there to dispossess me from

my land? Is it not correct that the I. O. has recorded false

statements of the witnesses to protect Shri Mahaveer

Yadav who is the brother of SHO/ Kirti Nagar and a

relative of DCP/SW?

6. Is it justified that the case under SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act was not registered on my complaint for a

period of more than 16 days?

7. According to your intimation given to me dated 9.11.2006,

in column no. 12 it has been said by you that since no

refusal is found on the part of SHO Najafgarh no

disciplinary proceedings are required against him. Is it

not the incorrect information given by you being a public

servant with an intent to save him from punishment

insp8ite of the fact that the copy of complaint dated

10.10.2006 was also sent to you and case was registered

on 25.10.2006? Did you not consider t his delay of more

than 16 days, a delay? Are you responsible for this delay

yourself?

8. According to the FIR No. 1018 dated 25.10.2006 P. S.

Najafgarh when “inquired into and prima facie a case u/s

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act made out, then”

a. Why the accused Lal Singh Yadav was arrested

too late i.e. on 2.12.2006 when the offence was

prima facie found to be made out.

b. The gist of the interrogation of the accused Lal

Singh Yadav which was recorded by the IO in his

case diary may please be supplied.

5c. Why the police remand was not obtained IO to

arrest his co-accused persons who have not been

arrest ill yet? Was it the in competency of the IO

or wilful neglect of his duties to save your relative/

persons known to you or it was done due to your

pressure to protect the accused persons?

9. Is it correct that by supplying of information to the

complainant of the case can impede the process of

investigation as mentioned by you in the given intimation

to me dated 9.11.2006? Which section of RTI says that

the complainant can impede the investigation?

10. Does it not prove your malafide intention that I was not

permitted to inspect the case files by you in which cases I

am complainant?

11. The ownership of plot no. 36 which is a Government

property which has sold by accused Lal Singh Yadav to

Shri Karan Pal Singh was not established by the IO

because the land grabbers are your relatives and the IO

is under your pressure. Is it correct or there is some

other reason like in competency or wilful neglect of duties

for not verifying the ownership of the plot?

12. Why any action was not taken against Lal Singh Yadav

on 12.10.2006 who made two false calls to the PCR

against me in which Govt. Machinery was misguided and

criminally misused by him? Why the SHO Najafgarh did

not register a case u/s 3(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act or under

the relevant Sections of IPC against him? Will you direct

him to do so now or not?

13. All the DD entries received in P. S. Najafgarh from PCR

on 8.10.2006 and 9.10.2006 relating to my case are

being denied by you because some manipulations have

been made in registering the cases against us on your

illegal orders. Is it not right? Will you supply these DD

entries along with the DD entries of 12.10.2006 and

24.12.2006?

14. I was called on 9.11.2006 by ACP/DIU/SWD in

connection with my complaint, ACP/DIU/SWD Shri Ved

Pal Rana conducted this enquiry under your orders. The

copies of the report of his inquiry may please be supplied

to me.

15. On 22.12.2006 I went to the office of Shri Ved Pal Rana

ACP/DIU/SW/ Distt to know the status of my complaint

which he was enquiring and it was learnt from him that

6your pressurized him to give the enquiry report in favour

of SHO/ Najafgarh and others but he inclined to follow

your illegal orders. You scolded him and he has

submitted a written complaint against you in this regard to

the Joint Commissioner of Police/ southern Range. Is it

not correct?

16. In spite of my various complaints from the very beginning

that the property reportedly owned by Shri Lal Singh

Yadav is a grabbed property:-

a. Why the case was not registered against those

persons who are land grabbers and grabbed the

Govt property?

b. Was it with your intention to save your relatives

from punishment or to save the grabbed property

from forfeiture?

c. Was it with your intention to save your

subordinates who are following your illegal orders

by framing incorrect record knowingly that it is a

Govt property but submitted the reports that

property belongs to the accused Lal Singh Yadav?

17. Why the GPA of plot No. 36 allegedly owned by accused

Lal Singh Yadav was not verified which says that the

property is ancestral property of the executants? Is it

also correct that it was not verified by the IO to save your

relatives along with the executants who is known to you?

Has the executants not committed forgery in preparing

GPA papers of this plot for Lal Singh Yadav.

18. The occurrence of the offence is on 9.10.2006 the case

FIR No. 1018/2006 was registered on25.10.2006 and the

challan has been prepared on 15.12.2006 in this regard:-

19. Is it not correct that ACP/IO of the case FIR No.

1018/2006 and SHO/Najafgarh has submitted false status

report in the court and false brief facts in the SC/ST

Commission.

20. Why the bail of accused Lal Singh was was not opposed

by the IO when the counsel of the accused submitted a

false information to the court on which the bail was

granted?

21. Is it not correct that you are concealing the facts and

supplying false information to me under Right to

7Information Act in order to save your relative and

subordinates from punishment?”

On not receiving a response within 48 hours appellant moved his first

appeal on 2-1-07 before JCP, Southern Range, which was dismissed by Shri

Rajesh Kumar, 1

st

Appellate Authority, JCP on 25-1-07 as follows:

“I find that the appellant’s application dated 26.12.2006 sent to

PIO/SWD by the appellant was in continuation/ response to the

reply of PIO/SWD issued vide memo No. 1368/DIC/SWD, dated

9.11.2006 i9n which he had asked some more questions related

to his matter. As such his application dated 26.12.2006 was not

dealt under the life and liberty and supply the information on

22.1.2007 within the stipulated period i.e. within 30 days from

the date of receipt of his application dated 26.12.2006, as per

the provisions o the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the

PIO/SWD. Hence, the appeal of Shri Jawahar Lal is not

maintainable at this stage as the PIO/SWD has sent the reply

dated 22.1.2007 to the appellant with it the stipulated period

under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in response to his

application dated 26.12.2005.”

Subsequently, he received a response from CPIO, South West dated

22-1-07 again point-wise responding to each of the questions raised by him

as follows:

“(a) An inspector can conduct a formal inquiry into any

complaint in which circumstances are not clear. Hence,

initially the matter was inquired by an Inspector and after

that the matter was referred to ACP as only ACP and

above are entitled to investigate such matters under

provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. As a result the case was

registered.

(b) Shri Hanuman Sahai Meena, Addl. SHO/ Najafgarh.

(c) Fifteen days.

(d) The requisite information can impede the process of

investigation as per section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act. Hence,

the same can not be disclosed.

2. Shri K. S. Bhatnagar, ACP/Najafgarh was referred the

matter on 25.10.2006. he visited the place of occurrence

on that day itself but you were not available at home on

that day. Again on 11.2006 ACP/ Najafgarh visited the

site and recorded the statement of Shri Gagan Singh and

Shri Gulab Singh both of the mare your sons. Copies of

8their statements can not be provided as the cases are still

pending investigation and the supply of statements can

impede the process of investigation as per section 8(1 )

(h) of RTI Act. You were not available on that day also.

3. It is incorrect to say that false case diaries have been

written. As regard the supply and inspection of case

diaries and stat4ements, the same can not be supplied/

allowed attic stage as the case are still pending

investigation and the supply of statement/ inspection can

impede the process of investigation as per section 8 (1)

(h) of RTI Act. However, you are being updated about

the progress of the case from time to time as per report of

ACP/Najafgarh.

4. Regarding this matter you may pursue the matter with

DCP/West District as the Kirti Nagar police station falls

under the jurisdiction of West District. However, no

threatening calls were made by SHO/ Kirti Nagar,

Inspector Satpal Yadav, he only talked to you to resolve

the plot dispute because he has been your colleague at

FRRO and both of you had earlier cordial relations with

each other as per report received.

5. On 22.10.2006 you joined the Panchayat convened by

the elders and respectable persons of the colony to

mutually resolve the plot dispute as it was creating

disharmony in the neighbourhood. No office under the

provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against Shri

Mahaveer Yadav from the perusal of your complaint

dated 22.10.2006 and from the investigation conducted.

The IO had recorded the true statements of the persons

who attend the Panchayat and nowhere could it be

established that Shri Mahaveer Yadav insulted the

complainant using caste based remarks.

6. Two cross case vide FIR No. 966/06 and 967/06 were

registered on 8.10.2006 and 9.10.2006 respectively due

to the fall out of the plot dispute. You did not mention

about the caste based insult made by Lal Singh initially

when the cross cases were registered but only

complained about it later on 10.10.2006. To confirm the

veracity of the complaint, since it was made later on after

the above two cases were registered, it was necessary to

confirm all the facts of the complaint, hence the gap

during which enquiry was conducted.

7. If the provided information is false in your view, you can

file an appeal as per provisions of this Act. As regards

9the rest of information, the comments are same as

mentioned at point No. 6.

8. (a) To arrest an accused person ,it is obligatory on the part of

IO to bring sufficient evidence on file and to fulfil and

formalities so that the arrest is justified.

(b) The requisite information i.e. copies of case diary

can not be provided as the remaining two cases

are pending investigation and the supply of such

type of information exempted u/s 8 (1) (h) &(g) of

RTI Act as it can impede the process of

investigation.

(c) The police remand was not required as all the

interrogation had been made from the accused

person and no clue about the other four person

was forthcoming. It was neither incompetence nor

wilful neglect on the part of the IO.

(d) The said case i.e. FIR No. 1018/06 has been sent

to Hon’ble Court for trial. Hence, you may pursue

the matter with Hon’ble Court.

9. Yes, it is correct that supply of all information of a case on

its investigation stage can impede the process of

investigation as per section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.

However, it is obligatory on the part of IO to bring factual

evidence on the file. Hence, even the complainant is not

entitled to get every type of information. He or she can

get the findings/ result of the matter and the same has

been provided or is being provided.

10. No. the comments are same as mentioned at Point No. 9.

11. The case has been sent to court for trial, hence, you may

pursue the matter with Hon’ble Court. However, the

ownership details of plot No. 36 has been verified during

the course of investigation of case FIR No. 1018/06 at

Tehsil Najafgarh but the record of plot No. 36 as well as

the applicant’s plot no. 32 is not available in the Revenue

records. The Patwari and Girdawar were taken to the

spot to establish the exact Khasra Nos. of these two plots,

but no clear picture could be provided by them. But he

has given in writing that the plot is not Govt. property.

There has been neglect in this aspect as the needful has

already been done.

1012. On enquiries, it was revealed that the calls were made by

Lal Singh on apprehension of his plot being occupied by

the applicant. Since there was a dispute between them

regarding the plot these calls were made. It was not

done with the intention to misuse the Govt. Machinery. A

case under relevant section of SC/ST (POA) Act has

already been registered against Lal Singh.

13. Since the remaining two cases are pending investigation

with Crime Branch/ Delhi, and the supply of requisite DD

entries can impede the process of investigation as per

section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, the same can not be provided.

14. The requisite information i.e. copy of enquiry is exempted

as per section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act and you can get only

the concluding part of the enquiry report as per orders of

Hon’ble CIC, but the same also can not be provided at

this stage as the remaining two cases are pending

investigation with Crime Branch Delhi the supply of

requisite information can impede the process of

investigation as per section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.

15. No the allegations regarding pressurizing the ACP/DIU

are totally false and baseless.

16 (a) It has not been established that the plot in question is a

grabbed property.

(b) Not applicable in view of the above submission.

(c) It has been verified by Tehsil/Najafgarh the plot

does not belong to Gram Sabha.

17. There has been no requirement to verify the GPA of plot

No. 36 as Revenue/ Tehsil office has not complained

about the same being Govt. Land No forgery has come to

notice in the property papers of Shri Lal Singh.

18 (a) Two cross cases vide FIR No. 966/06 were got registered

on 9.10.2006 by you as well as the opposite party. Your

statements regarding threat, trespass, damage to

property and ample hurt by family of Lal Singh were got

recorded by the IO in the evening 9.10.2006 whereas the

alleged occurrences pertaining to SC/ST Act took place

at 12.00 noon on 9.10.2006 but you did not mention

anything about it in your complaint on which FIR No.

966/06 u/s 323/427/451/506/34 IPC was registered and

you submitted your complaint in PS Najafgarh on

10.10.2006 regarding allegations of caste based remarks

against Lal Singh. In the of justice a preliminary enquiry

11was got conducted by an officer belonging of S/T

category i.e. Inspr. H. S. Meena, Addl. SHO/ Najafgarh

and thereafter this case was registered on 25.10.2006.

There has been no unnecessary delay in registering the

case.

(b) Nowhere is it mentioned in section 7 of SC/ST

(POA) Act that challan has to be prepared within

30 days. It is laid down in Sec 7 that the IO will

expedite the investigation of the case and a report

regarding progress of the case would be sent to

senior officers within 30 days and this provision

has already been complied with.

(c ) During investigation of case FIR No. 1018/06, the

identity of the co-accused could not be ascertained.

The accused Lal Singh was interrogated at length

about this but he reiterated that he had taken the

tractors with mud from Dhansa stand. These

people have no permanent base and the tractor

trolleys too were without any number. As such the

co-accused could not be arrest.

(d) There is no fault at the part of ACP/ Najafgarh.

(e) No, the allegations are false and baseless.

19. It is not correct.

20. The bail was strongly opposed by the IO but granting of

bail is the prerogative of Hon’ble Court.

21. It is not correct. If the information is false in your view,

you may pursue the matter with the appellate Authority.”

Thereafter, on 1-2-07 Shri Jawahar Lal again moved a first appeal

before the JCP, Southern Range on the grounds that “knowingly incorrect,

incomplete and misleading information have been supplied by him at both the

times. Some Information are being denied malafidely by him.” After

examination of this appeal Shri Rajesh Kumar, 1

st

Appellate Authority has

responded as follows:

“RTI request No. 1 dated 7.11.2006.

Point Nos. 1, 2 and 12: Need no more information.

Point Nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7: The case FIR No. 966/2006 PS

Najafgarh is being investigated by Crime Branch, hence

PIO/DCP/SW as well as undersigned being appellate authority

12is not in a position to give information/ copy of documents and to

allow to inspect the documents.

Point No. 8: Needs no more information, as the case FIR No.

1018/2006 is, presently, pending trial in the Court. You can take

up the matter with the Hon’ble Court to provide certified copies

of case diaries etc.

However in the aforesaid case the accused was arrested on

2.12.06.

Point Nos. 9 and 10: Point has already been covered by the

PIO/DCP/SW vide Point n O. 1 in reply of 2

nd

application.

Point no. 11: Accused namely Lal Singh S/o Subhash r/o RZ-41

K- Block Gopal Nagal, Najafgarh was arrested in case FIR No.

1018/2006 PS Najafgarh and the case is pending trial in the

court.

Point No. 13: The DCP/PIO/SW Distt is directed to supply the

DD entries of the calls received from PCR on 8.10.2006 and

9.10.2006 relating to the case of the appellant with their disposal,

as requested for.

Point No. 14: The PIO/DCP/SW is directed to give to the

appellant a copy of the enquiry report suitably deleting from it

any names of specific details which will expose any person to

avoidable risk (Reg Section 8 (1) (g).

RTI request No. 2 dated 7.11.2006

1

.

Point Nos. 1,2,5 to 12,14 to 21 no more information is required

to be given.

Point No. 3: Since, the case is pending trial in the court, hence,

may approach to the Court for the same.

Point no. 4: This is the right of the appellant to know about

action taken by the IO in the case relating to him.

The PIO/DCP/SW is directed to inform the appellant, as asked,

if the appellant had given information/ complaint to the police in

this regard.

Point No. 13: As regards to provide DD entire dated 12.10.2006

and 24.12.2006 the directs already given vide Point No. 14 of 1

st

RTI request be complied.”

1

Presumably this has reference to the application of 26.12.’06, which was the second request

13 As will be seen JCP has, therefore, directed that some of the

information sought was still qualified for disclosure. This order was complied

with through a letter of DCP addressed to Inspector Jawahar Lal on 23-3-07,

subsequent to which appellant moved a second appeal before us with the

following prayer:

“The PIO/DCP/SWD is himself an accused in case FIR No.

1018///06 P. S. Najafgarh u/s 3 SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989

because his name exists in the FIR itself. Therefore, he has

concealed some information’s and supplied false, incorrect,

incomplete, misleading and defensive information’s under RTI

Act, 2005, knowingly to protect himself as well as his

subordinates and to save the other accused persons. He has

tortured the applicant by not supply the correct information’s

knowingly and delayed the investigation of the case which his a

Speedy Trial case by the Special court. He has infringed his

Fundamental Rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian

Constitution by not supply the desired information’s. The Right

to know or be informed is the foundation of Democracy and is

derived from the Plenary provisions of Article 19 (1) (a) of the

Constitution of India which has also been violated by him. There

are sufficient and reasonable ground for an inquiry into the

matter who has not only delayed the information release but he

have also obstructed to release the information from other

authorities malafidely. Public Offices are the Tr5ust for the

people and the PIO/DCP/SWD being a public servant is a

trustee of the information’s but he has denied the information’s

to the applicant which is also a Breach of Trust, hence he is

liable for punishment besides the fine as per provision of RTI Act

2005. Therefore, the penalty may please be imposed upon him

and the disciplinary action against Shri R. S. Yadav may also be

taken for violation of Law under the Service Rules applicable to

him u/s 20 of RTI Act, 2005. The direction may also be issued

to him to supply the correct information’s for which the applicant

is waiting since 7.11.2006 till today and is being tortured by him

being a member of Scheduled Caste Community. Pass such

other orders also which your Honour deem fit, in the interest of

Justice.”

The appeal was heard on 10-12-08. Following are present.

Appellant

Shri Jawahar Lal.

Respondents

Shri L. C. Jain, LA/CP on behalf of Spl. CP.

Shri S. R. Yadav, ACP.

Ms. Shalini Singh, DCP/SW.

Ms. Sharmila, ASI

14 Inspector Jawahar Lal appellant conceded that further information had

been received subsequent to his moving this appeal before us. However, the

key issue is information provided against question No. 14 in the information

sought in application of 7-11-06 which is as follows:

S. No. Information sought in the

application of 7.11.2006

Reply.

1. DD entry of the PCR call

received on 12.10.2006

which was attended by

ASI Bhupinder Singh may

also be supplied along

with its disposal by him

and the certified copy of

the statement he recoded

himself on which the

respectable persons

signed as witnesses and

found the call made by Lal

Singh to PCR to be a false

call.

The EO reached at the

spot for the purpose of

enquiry and the verified

the facts. The

complainant did not record

his written statement.

However, no such

possession was found at

the spot. Hence, the call

was filed.

In this context appellant SI Jawahar Lal submitted a copy of the report

of ASI, Bhupinder Singh of 2-6-07 in which Shri Bhupinder Singh has

submitted as follows:

“After statement of Lal Singh was recorded, Lal Singh intimated that he

is not feeling well and also directed his children not to sign the

statement, which fact is apparent from the signatures of President of

colony Mr. Sat Prakash and others

2

and no proof of grabbing of land

found and copy of report was filed on 11

th

October”

In this context Shri Jawahar Lal also submitted a statement of

information remaining outstanding a copy of which was handed over to

respondent Ms. Shalini Singh, DCP (SW).

Respondent Ms. Shalini Singh on the other hand submitted that Shri

Jawahar Lal had been invited to inspect the records, had then inspected them

and submitted a note of satisfaction which was also displayed in the hearing.

Although appellant Jawahar Lal conceded that he had, in fact, inspected the

file he stated that the documents sought in consequence had not been fully

provided, hence the plea above. Ms. Shalini Singh therefore, stated that they

2

Underlined by us for reference

15have no objection in disclosing the information on record and if anything

remains that would be provided forthwith. In this context she agreed that any

enquiry report held by the Department from Shri H.S. Meena and any

recorded statement held but not provided would be so provided to appellant

Shri Jawahar Lal.

DECISION NOTICE

In light of the above and with the expression of readiness of

respondents to provide the information sought by Shri Jawahar Lal remaining

information outstanding as follows will be supplied to him within 10 working

days of the date of issue of this decision notice:

1. Copy of statement of Lal Singh as recorded, together with the

statement with signatures of President of colony Mr. Sat Prakash and

others

2. Any enquiry report held by the Department from IO Shri H.S. Meena

The appeal is thus allowed in part. Announced in the hearing.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)

Chief Information Commissioner

10-12-2008

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

10-12-2008

16