Action taken on complaint to police regarding a property dispute between complainant and his brother - CIC: the enquiry report is cryptic; the complaint to be enquired afresh by a senior police officer; ensure the presence of appellant during enquiry
Action taken on complaint to police regarding a property dispute between complainant and his brother – Appellant claimed that his complaints have not been properly enquired into - Appellant stated that no police officer ever met him nor has his statement been recorded by the Police in this respect till date - being a senior citizen, he cannot stay on the property due to the nuisance created by the alleged person against whom he has filed a complaint in police – CIC: the enquiry report is cryptic; FAA to have the complaint enquired into afresh by a senior police officer and to ensure that the enquiry is done in presence of the Appellant
Shri Harvinder Singh hereinafter called the Appellant has filed the present appeal dated 8.02.2013 before the commission against the respondent namely Delhi PoliceWest. The Appellant was present in person in the hearing along with Shri Gurucharan Singh whereas from the Respondent side CPIOShri Vinit Kumar (ACP/Tilak Nagar); Shri Bhaskar Sharma (SHO/Hari Nagar); Shri Chandra Shekhar (SI/ICDIC) and Shri Rajender Kumar (SI) were present during the hearing.
2. The Appellant through the RTI application dated 19.10.2012 filed before the CPIO/Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Rampura, Delhi sought information on following 4 points:
“(1) What action you have taken on my complaint dated 10.01.2012 and 14.07.2012 (copies attached)?;
(2) Please provide copy of any order or action taken by you or reply filed by the Respondent;
(3) Please disclose about the procedure when any person crate nuisance or dispute relating to land or water. (4) How much time you generally taken on any complaint of nuisance etc.?”
3. The PIO/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajouri Garden, Delhi vide letter no: DC(W)/SDM/RG/RTI/ID/NO.164/2012/1323613237 dated 31.10.2012 transferred the RTI application of the Appellant to the Station House Officer (SHO Harinagar, Delhi) instead of to the CPIO/Addl. DCP. In response to the letter of SDM, the SHO Harinagar PS replied to the SDM vide letter dated 19.11.2012 as follows:
“….the complaint of Shri Harvinder Singh was inquired. The matter is property dispute between complainant and his brother which is civil in nature. No cognizable offence is made out and the complaint is sent to the complaint branch west District vide this office No: CMTS325/ HN dated 30.10.2012 in reference to this office No:300/5DPO/TN dated 26.10.2012.”
4. Upon non receipt of any reply either form the CPIO/W.D, the Appellant filed an appeal dated 12.12.2012 before the FAAAddl. CP West District which was disposed of by the FAA vide order dated 14.01.2013 as follows:
“There is no doubt that the public information officer is liable to send reply to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, hence the matter was clarified from the PIO (Addl.DCP) /West District. It has been found no RTI application dated 19.10.2012 of the appellant was received in the office of PIO/West District. On receipt of this appeal necessary comments of SHO/ Hari Nagar were obtained through PIO/West District and found that RTI application of the Appellant was received in PS Hari Nagar on 6.11.2012 through SDM/ Rajouri Garden and reply of the same was sent to SDM/Rajouri Garden on 19.11.2012 through SHO/ Hari Nagar at his end. Hence, RTI application of the Appellant was not received in appropriate office of PIO/West District (Police), Delhi from the office of DC/West or SDM/ Rajouri Garden, Delhi. However, it is hereby informed that PIO for providing any information related to Police, under the jurisdiction West District, is Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police (I), West District none of SHO is a PIO, under the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, in future RTI application, if any may be addressed to appropriate officer. Though, with reference to Letter No: DC (W)/SDM/RG/RTI/ID No: 164/12/1323637 dated 31.10.2012, SHO Hari Nagar replied to SDM/ Rajouri Garden with the report that complaint of the Appellant was enquired properly. During course of enquiry it revealed that the matter is only property dispute between appellant and his brother, Sh. Manjeet Singh which is civil in nature. No Cognizable offence was made out and the complaint in question was filed. Thus, no delay on the part of the PIO/West District in disposing off RTI request of the Appellant has been noticed by the undersigned and there is no denial of providing information. Besides, the appellant is hereby informed that only such information is required to be supplied under RTI Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The PIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information or solve the problem or to furnish replied to hypothetical questions. The appellant has the right to know the status of an issue which has been conveyed by SHOHari Nagar, vide his letter report as narrated above. Under the provision of RTI Act, 2005, the Appellant cannot claim that the issue should be decided or should have been decided in a particular manner. The Appeal is therefore, disposed off with above discussion.”
5. The Appellant has filed the present the Appeal before the Commission on the ground that no reply has been provided to him by the Respondent.
6. During the hearing before the Commission, the Appellant reiterates that no information has been received by him in relation to his RTI application. On being informed by the Respondent of the reply of SHO, Harinagar and the FAA, Appellant submits that his complaints on which he sought information through his RTI application have not been properly enquired into by the Police. He states that no police officer that ever met him nor has his statement been recorded by the Police in this respect till date. The Appellant also submits that he being a senior citizen cannot stay on the property due to the nuisance created by the alleged person against whom he has filed a complaint in police.
7. There is some merit in the contention put forth by the Appellant. The enquiry report is cryptic and perfunctory. There is no mention of any enquiry having been made with the Complainant (Appellant in this case), the I.O has reached a conclusion without even ascertaining the nature/ details of the complaint from the complainant himself. The appellant is entitled to get correct reply from the Respondent in response to his RTI Application and not some inadequate enquiry report.
8. The Commission therefore hereby directs the CPIO/FAA to have the complaint or petition enquired into afresh by a senior police officer and to ensure that the enquiry is done in presence of the Appellant. Directions of the Commission are to be complied with within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
Citation: Shri Harvinder Singh v. Delhi Police West in Case No: CIC/SS/A/2013/000536, CIC/SS/A/2013/000671