Appellant: expired tear gas used by the police in an incident had affected the eyes of the public and a sample of the tear gas was sought to send it to forensic lab - Respondent: no sample of tear gas could be given for security reason - CIC: order upheld
1. The appellant filed an application dated 07.02.2013 under the RTI Act, seeking a wide canvas of information, including about investigation, details of tear gas, details of duty given to vehicles, number of complaints, etc. CPIO responded vide letter dated 07.03.2013. Appellant filed first appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 01.03.2013. FAA vide order dated 10.04.2013 provided further information to the appellant. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 25.04.2013.
2. Appellant and respondent were present before the Commission.
3. Appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he had received some of the information but he did not receive complete information on point 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the RTI application.
4. Appellant stated that there was a public meeting and the police promised to the public that they would remove the street hawkers in that particular area. Appellant asked that if the concerned police officer did not comply with that promises, what action should be taken against the police officer who was responsible for implementation of the order.
5. Appellant stated that the police had used expired tear gas in an incident which had affected the eyes of the public. Appellant stated that in this light he wanted to have a sample of the tear gas in order to send to forensic lab.
6. Appellant stated that in that public meeting a video was recorded by the police officers and he wanted to have a copy of CD.
7. Respondent stated that they had provided the available information to the appellant. Respondent stated that no sample of tear gas could be given for security reason.
8. Respondent stated that no CD was available on record for that public meeting, therefore it could not be provided to the appellant.
9. Respondent must provide to the appellant elaborate information on point 1 and 2 of the RTI application.
10. The response of the CPIO dated 7.3.2013, followed by the FAA’s response is in conformity with the RTI Act. Order of the FAA is comprehensive.
11. The order of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri V. Singh v. Delhi Police in Decision No.CIC/SS/A/2013/001541/VS/05760