Copies of complaints against the appellant in the police station - preventive action was initiated against the appellant - CIC: denial of copy of complaints u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) upheld - a copy of statement, if recorded, to be provided to the appellant
25 Sep, 2013Copies of complaints against the appellant in the police station - preventive action was initiated u/s 107/150 CrPC against the appellant - CIC: denial of the copy of complaints against the appellant u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. upheld - a copy of statement of, if recorded, to be provided to the appellant
ORDER
Shri Yogesh Malhotra, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 6.11.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, South East District for not providing information on Point No. 8, 9 and 10 in response to his RTI application dated 15.6.2012. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Bir Singh, ACP, Shri Prem Kumar, Inspector and Shri D.K. Tejwan, SI.
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 15.6.2012 sought information on ten queries. The background of the case is that on 19.3.2012 a PCR call was made by appellant’s neighbour namely Sonia Malhotra regarding quarrel. The PCR handed over the matter to ASI, Santpal Singh of PS Kalkaji. In his appeal the appellant has sought information on Points 8, 9 and 10 of his RTI is as follows:
“(8) Date wise copies of the complaints made by Smt. Sonia Malhotra and other residents of Kalkaji against the appellant in the past. As per ASI Sant Pal written
“On enquiry, it was found that there are many complaints made by Smt. Sonia Malhotra and other residents against Yogesh Malhotra” in reply to his earlier RTI dated 1.5.2012;
(9) Photocopies of aforesaid compromise made on 19.3.2012 in PS Kalkaji between both the parties; and
(10) Photocopies of statements given by both the parties.”
The CPIO vide letter No. Id- 1468/12/7449/RTI Cell/SED dated 12.7.2012 replied to the appellant on these points as follows:
“(8) The copies of complaints against the appellant cannot be provided as per the provision of Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act;
(9) In this connection, it is mentioned that no compromise took place on 19.3.2012; and
(10) In this connection, it is mentioned that the statement of Smt. Sonia Malhotra is enclosed with Kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr. P.C. against the applicant which is subjudice before the Hon’ble Court of SEM/SED”.
3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO on Point No. 8, 9 and 10 of the RTI application, the appellant filed first appeal on 20.7.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. 612-14/RTI/ A. Section/ Addl. CP/SED dated 21.8.2012 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.
4. During the hearing the appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide a copy of the statement Shri Jeevan Das Kalra, besides the requested information.
5. The appellant is seeking copies of all complaints filed against him. The respondent submit that they had received a complaint against the appellant from Smt. Sonia Malhotra in which she alleged that he usually breaks the pipe of the combined toilet and quarrels with her. On enquiry by the Police, it was found that there are many complaints made by Smt. Sonia Malhotra and other residents against Yogesh Malhotra. In view of the situation, preventive action u/s 107/150 Cr. P.C. against Yogesh Malhotra was initiated. The statement of Smt. Sonia Malhotra is placed Kalandra instituted.
6. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that information as sought for by the appellant at Point No. 9 and 10 has been provided to the appellant. The plea of the respondent that the complaints against the appellant attract the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, is upheld. However, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide a copy of statement of Shri Jeevan Das Kalra, if recorded, to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Yogesh Malhotra v. Delhi Police in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003793