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
No comments:
Post a Comment