PIO simply forwarded the reply given by SHO to the Appellant without examining whether it contained the complete and correct information or not - CIC: being a statutory authority, PIO is expected to examine the request and then pass a speaking order
The appellant sought action taken by the Police officials on his complaint - the PIO had simply forwarded the reply given by SHO to the Appellant without examining whether it contained the complete and correct information or not - being a statutory authority, PIO is expected to examine the request for information and then pass a speaking order – CIC: PIO directed to examine the Appellant’s complaint afresh under the relevant provision of law and then provide the factual information - PIO should also look into the Appellant’s complaint regarding ‘threat to his life & liberty’ by the person he has complained against and take appropriate action on the same - if certain categories of information are placed on public domain (website of the public authority) or by providing outcome of enquiry into complaints to the complainant, it would provide easy access to such basic information to the citizens about their cases - the Commissioner of Delhi Police or an officer authorised by him to put forth his considered views by way of a written submission on the matter of feasibility of making such information
The present appeal filed by Shri Ramkishan against Delhi Police, Outer District, New Delhi was taken up for hearing on 05.09.2013 when the Respondents were present through Shri Suresh Chander, APIO. The Appellant was present.
Facts of the case:
2. The Appellant filed RTI application dated 18.10.2011 with the CPIO, Delhi Police, seeking following information in respect of his complaint dated 12.10.2011:
“I. What action has been taken by the Police officials of P.S. Mangol Puri, Delhi on my complaint dated 12.10.2011 vide DD no. 55B dated 12.10.2011. II. Whether any case was registered against the accused persons or not if not registered why the police concerned not registered any case against the accused persons.”
3. The CPIO vide his letter dated 23.10.2011 informed the Appellant that as per the report of SHO/ PS Mangolpuri received through ACP Rohini, his complaint dated 12.10.2011 has been filed.
4. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which the Appellate Authority decided vide his order dated 10.01.2012 holding that the information has been provided to the Appellant.
5. The Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal before the Commission.
6. During the hearing the Respondents inform the Commission that the matter related the present RTI application had already been decided by the Commission vide order dated 14.12.2012 in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001533 wherein the Commission had directed them to provide a copy of enquiry report to the Appellant which they have provided to him vide their letter dated 28.02.2012.
7. The Appellant, on his part, alleges that his complaint has not been properly enquired into by the police. It is his cases that he has been wrongfully expelled from his house by one Shri Sanjay Gupta, against whom he had filed the complaint in question. In this complaint he had also alleged that Shri Sanjay Gupta had used casteist remarks against him. According to him, the said house belongs to his uncle, Shri Sunder Lal, who had brought him up since his childhood and, therefore, he has right to take possession of said property being a member of the family of his uncle.
8. The Respondents state that as per their enquiry report Shri Sunder Lal was the original owner of the said property and that he had sold it to one Shri Sanjay Gupta—the person against whom the Appellant has filed the complaint in question. The Appellant, however, refutes this statement of the Respondents and state that the said property had not been sold by his uncle, Shri Sunder Lal to anybody.
9. On consideration of the matter and on perusal of records, the Commission notes that the complaint in question of the Appellant also contained the allegation of using casteist remarks against him by Shri Sanjay Gupta which had been enquired into at the level of Head Constable (Shri Chandeer Bhan; P.S. Mangolpuri), who in its report dated 25.10.2011 had found the allegations leveled by the Appellant as “baseless” and “false”, whereas such nature of allegations/complaint are required to be enquired into at the level of officer not below the rank of ACP as per the ‘Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities (Act) 1989’. The Respondents, present during the hearing, also agrees with this fact. Besides, the Commission also notes that the CPIO had simply forwarded the reply given by SHO to the Appellant without examining whether it contained the complete and correct information or not. The CPIO being a statutory authority is expected to examine the request for information and then pass a speaking order. It would not be out of place to mention here that had the CPIO examined the present case and the reply of the SHO visàvis the subject matter of RTI application (i.e. complaint dated 12.10.2011) properly he would have noticed that the enquiry conducted in the present case itself is not as per the law since it has not been conducted by the competent authority/officer as defined in the ‘Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities (Act) 1989’
10. Considering the facts above, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to examine the Appellant’s complaint afresh under the relevant provision of law and then provide the factual information to the Appellant. The CPIO should also look into the Appellant’s complaint regarding ‘threat to his life & liberty’ by the person he has complained against and take appropriate action on the same. The information/reply is to be provided to the Appellant within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
11. The Commission also observes that number of RTI applications filed by citizens with Delhi Police (which are finally brought up to the Commission as appeals/complaints) are regarding seeking information about the status; processing of complaints filed before the police and their outcome; D.D. No.; FIR No.; progress of investigation; outcome of investigation. The Commission feels that if certain categories of information are placed on public domain (website of the public authority) or by providing outcome of enquiry into complaints to the complainant, it would not only provide easy access to such basic information/ details to the complainants/ citizens about their cases/ complaints, but, at the same time, would also minimize the number of RTI applications being filed with the Delhi Police.
12. Under Section 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; of the RTI Act ever public authority is required to publish certain categories of information so that it can be easily accessible to the citizens. Section 4(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information. of the RTI Act makes it obligatory on the part of every public authority to put constant endeavour to make as much information public suo moto. This section reads as follows: “(2) It shall be a constant endeavaour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirement of clause (b) of subsection (1) to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Ac to obtain information.”
13. Further, the purpose of the RTI Act is to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of every public authority, and to provide freedom to every citizen to secure access to information under the control of the public authorities.
14. In view of the above, the Commission, before issuing any direction (on the present issue) to the public authority under section 19(8)(a)(iii) of the RTI Act, would like to give an opportunity to the Commissioner of Delhi Police or an officer authorised by him to put forth his considered views by way of a written submission on the matter of feasibility of making such information (as identified in para 11 above) public suo moto via their official website. This written submission may be submitted to the Commission by 01.10.2013.
15. The concerned First Appellate Authority and the CPIO at the Headquarters of Delhi Police are hereby directed to be present before the Commission for hearing in the matter on 4th October, 2013 at 1215 Hrs. The Respondents (viz., Delhi Police, Outer District) in this case should also be present in person before the Commission on the scheduled date of hearing.
Citation: Shri Ramkishan v. Delhi Police in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003262