Allotment of accommodation - appellant complained that his position was changed to 55th position from 1st - PIO: no disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) as enquiry is pending - CIC: intimate progress of investigation and why the appellant cannot be allotted a quarter
9 Sep, 2013
Shri Balvinder Singh, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 18.10.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, PHQ/Cyber Crime Branch for not providing complete and satisfactory information in response to his RTI application dated 14.5.2012. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri P.M. Kaushik, ACP/RTI, Shri Zile Singh, ACP/Crime, Shri Hareesh H.P., ACP, Cyber, EOW, Shri Vijay Pal Singh Kesana, SI/Cyber Cell and Shri Ravinder Kumar, SI/RTI/EOW.
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 14.5.2012 sought information on eleven queries regarding allotment of accommodation at New Police Line, GTB Nagar against his computer registration No. CG: Q04040412- IN10026 for allotment of ‘unpopular accommodation’ under First Come First Serve Scheme. According to this registration his position was at 1st number, but someone changed his status from 1st position to 55th position. Complaints have been submitted by him to many Officers in this regard but no reply has been received by him. He had also sought answers to queries such as whether any person had benefited from this and whether enquiries had been made from this person, in case it takes a long time to complete the enquiry, can he be allotted the quarter requested, as per the original status. The CPIO/PHQ vide letter No. XXIV/29/Spl/ID-2383/2012/20423 dated 5.6.2012 informed the appellant that the matter was under enquiry and the report was awaited. The appellant was informed that there were six more complaints regarding allotment of ‘unpopular quarters’, which were also under enquiry. The CPIO/PHQ vide letter No. 6759-60 dated 18.5.2012 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO/Crime Branch and CPIO, EOW where the enquiry was being conducted by the Cyber Crime Cell for providing suitable reply pertaining to them directly to the appellant. The CPIO/Cyber Crime Cell/EOW vide letter No. 3046-47/R-ACP/CCC/EOW dated 24.5.2012 informed the appellant that the enquiry into his complaint was still pending therefore no information could be provided at this stage under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
of the RTI Act.
3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 5.7.2012 before the FAA/PHQ. The FAA/PHQ vide his order No. XXIV/29/SPL/Appeal ID No. 42/2012/Application ID-2383/28508-12 dated 13.8.2012 upheld the reply of the CPIO/PHQ. However, the FAA directed the CPIO/PHQ to provide certain additional information to the appellant. I/C Quarter Allotment Cell/PHQ was directed to provide the copies of the final enquiry report and other relevant information directly to the appellant as and when enquiry of the case is completed.
4. The respondent state during the hearing that the matter is still pending enquiry and no time limit can be fixed for its completion.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the appellant is the victim of hacking of the website of Delhi Police with the result he has been denied accommodation. Since the investigation going on for quite some time and the Cyber Crime Cell cannot give any assurance as to when the enquiry will be completed, the CPIO/Cyber Crime Cell, EOW is hereby directed to apprise the appellant of the progress of investigation and to answer appellant’s beneficiary, if any of the crime. The CPIO/PHQ is also advised to look into the grievance query regarding be of the appellant sympathetically and in view of the time taken for investigations, to apprise the appellant why he cannot be allotted a quarter. The CPIO/Cyber Crime Cell and CPIO/PHQ will comply with the directions of the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order.
Citation: Shri Balvinder Singh v. Delhi Police in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003653