Information about photocopy of DD & FIR, name of IO & whether the accused was carrying any intoxicant etc. relating to a complaint lodged by the appellant was sought - CIC: PIO to ensure that the RTI applications received are dealt with due seriousness
2. Shri T.R. Kuriakose filed an application dated 07.09.2013 under the RTI Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Police seeking information on 17 points including photocopy of the DD, copy of FIR, name of the IO, who conducted the inquiry and whether the accused was carrying any intoxicant etc. relating to a complaint which was lodged by the appellant at Police Station, Chittaranjan Park.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.10.2013 provided parawise information to the appellant. As the appellant was not satisfied with the reply on the ground that he has not received information relating to points no.6,13 & 16, he filed an appeal with FAA dated 24.10.2013. The FAA vide order dated 27.11.2013 directed to provide information afresh on points nos.6,13 and 16 as per his application dated 07.09.2013 under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The complainant filed the second appeal against this order with the CIC on 4.1.2014.
3. The appellant Shri T.R.Kariakose and the Respondent Shri B.S.Khatana, PIO and ACP and Shri Rajmal Meena, Inspector were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that no information was provided in compliance of FAA’s order dated 27.11.2013. The appellant further submitted that information provided on point no. 13 of the RTI application was not correct as about 1015 people were present when the incident took place.
5. The respondent submitted that information was provided vide letter dated 09.10.2013. Subsequently, in compliance of FAA’s order dated 27.11.2013 additional information was provided vide letter dated 23.12.2013 to the appellant. The respondent submitted that though there were a few persons at the time of incident but since no one was willing to testify hence it was mentioned that no eye witness was found. The respondent further submitted that inadvertently in reply to point No. 16 it was mentioned that Kalandara has been filed before the SDM, Shyam Nath Marg whereas it was filed before the Duty Magistrate, Shyam Nath Marg.
6. The Commission directs the CPIO to ensure that in future the RTI applications received are dealt with due seriousness.
7.The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri T.R. Kuriakose v. Delhi Police in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2014/000295/SB