A copy of police enquiry report revealed that the office of M/s. Debonair Security was closed for 3 years - arrest warrant could not be executed as Smt. Khanna was untraceable - CIC: make another attempt to trace her and apprise outcome to the appellant
In a complaint, it was alleged that Smt. Poonam Khanna was running a Security Agency in the name of Debonair in Hauz Rani in the premises owned by Shri Shamim Ahmed - The Labour Court convicted Smt. Khanna and had ordered her to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- Appellant was provided a copy of the enquiry report which revealed that the office of M/s. Debonair Security has been closed for about three years and the landlord does not have any idea about the whereabouts of the owner of the company or any office staff - the Police could not execute the arrest warrant as the accused Smt. Khanna was not traceable - CIC: the CPIO to make another attempt to trace the whereabouts of Smt. Khanna and apprise outcome to the appellant
Shri Anil Kumar Rathore, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 17.12.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, South District for not providing satisfactory information in response to his RTI-application dated 30.8.2012. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Harpal Singh, ACP, Shri Vijay Pal Singh, SHO/ Malviya Nagar and Shri Ashok Kumar, S.I.
2. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.8.2012 addressed to the CPIO / Vigilance, in which he stated that he had filed a complaint dated 2.4.2012 in the Office of the DCP / Vigilance, Delhi Police and another complaint dated 11.11.2011 in the office of DCP/South District against Smt. Poonam Khanna and landlord Shamim Ahmed. He alleged that Smt. Poonam Khanna was running a Security Agency in the name of Debonair in the premises No. A-26, Hauz Rani Opposite Press Enclave owned by Shri Shamim Ahmed. The Hon’ble Labour Court has declared conviction against Smt. Poonam Khanna. The Labour Court had ordered Smt. Poonam Khanna to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the appellant. But when she came to know that the Court has issued warrant against her, she closed the agency and managed to flee from there. He further alleged that P.S. Malviya Nagar had this information as he had filed a complaint dated 11.11.2011 to the DCP/SD, but neither did they pay any heed nor did they conduct any investigation against Smt. Poonam Khanna and landlord Shamim Ahmed. The appellant has requested that he may be provided copy of the enquiry report. He further requested that landlord Shamim Ahmed may be called in the DCP Office or Vigilance Office and the investigation proceeding be completed with video coverage. The CPIO/SD vide letter No. (2529)/RTI Cell/SD dated 3.10.2012 provided a copy of enquiry conducted by the Police in which it transpired that the IO Shri Ashok Kumar, SI visited the office of M/s. Debonair Security & Allied Services, Malviya Nagar New Delhi, where the owner of the house Mr. Shamim Ahmed informed that the security office has been closed about three years earlier and he does not have any idea about the whereabouts of the owner of the company or any office staff. The IO also went to the residence of Smt. Poonam Khanna, E-51, 2nd Floor, GK Part II, New Delhi but it was found that she was residing there two years before but is not residing there now. No clue has been found about the whereabouts of Smt. Poonam Khanna, the owner of the Company.
3. Aggrieved with reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the FAA. The FAA vide order No. 2425/RTI Cell/South District dated 4.9.2012 while upholding the reply of the CPIO observed that the RTI is not the forum for redressal of grievances. If the appellant is not satisfied with the enquiry conducted by the police, he may approach the appropriate forum.
4. During the hearing the respondent state that the arrest warrant against Smt. Poonam Khanna, the owner of the said Security Agency, was issued by the Court of the Assistant Collector, New Delhi on 26.2.2010 and was returnable on 2.3.2010. However, the Police could not execute the arrest warrant on the grounds that the accused Smt. Poonam Khanna was not traceable. On the other hand the appellant alleges that no serious attempt was made by the police to trace Smt. Poonam Khanna and it is not possible that the Police were unable to trace Smt. Khanna, who was running the Security Agency within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that though some information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. However, there may have been lapses on the part of the I.O., local Police in locating the whereabouts of Smt. Poonam Khanna after issue of arrest warrant. The CPIO/FAA, being senior officers, ought to have taken appropriate action on appellant’s plea that proper action had not been taken on the complaints filed by the appellant. The appellant is entitled to get complete and correct information to RTI queries. The respondent agrees to make another attempt to trace Smt. Poonam Khanna. In view of above submissions, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to make another attempt to trace the whereabouts Smt. Poonam Khanna and apprise outcome to the appellant. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within four weeks of receipt of this order. The FAA will also look into the grievance of the appellant regarding lapses on the part of the Police in complying with Court’s directions.
Citation: Shri Anil Kumar Rathore v. Delhi Police in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000292