CIC: In spite of caution & advice, the appellant failed to restrain himself - CIC: The bench recluses from further hearing of the case - CIC: It may be placed before the Chief Information Commissioner for transferring the matter to some other bench

ORDER

1. Shri Hari Shankar Tripathi filed an application 15.08.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Commissioner, Police Headquarters, Delhi, seeking information on five points pertaining to demonstration for one rank one pension, including

(i) who have ordered for removal of ex-army soldiers forcibly, copy of the executive order in this regard,

(ii) particulars of the official/officer who was responsible for evicting the ex-army soldiers and

(iii) details of the perceived threat to security from these ex-army soldiers.

2. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 14.11.2015 before the Commission on the ground that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO and FAA.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Hari Shankar Tripathi and the respondent Shri Surender Singh, APIO and ACP, Delhi Police were present in person.

4. The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the respondent. The appellant further submitted that the “squatters” were demonstrating after obtaining due permission from Commissioner of Police, Delhi and hence, were not encroachers. The appellant submitted that he wants information regarding the name of police officer, who had directed use of force to remove the peaceful demonstrators; whether the order was verbal or written; and whether any notice was given to the demonstrators to vacate the place. The appellant further submitted that if it was a drive to remove encroachment, the relevant order of the NDMC would be available with the Delhi Police and therefore, a copy of same should be provided to him. Besides, the appellant submitted that Delhi Police have taken more than 24 days in transferring the RTI application to NDMC and, therefore, action should be taken against the CPIO concerned of Delhi Police. Besides, the CPIO, Delhi Police had acted with a malafide intent in transferring the RTI application to NDMC merely to deny information as Delhi Police were fully aware that the information sought was not with NDMC.

5. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 26.09.2015 that his RTI application has been transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to NDMC. The respondent further submitted that the NDMC had along with the Delhi Police carried out an anti-encroachment drive on 14.08.2015 a day prior to the Independence Day, 2015 but the rally being organized by the ex-servicemen for OROP was given exemption from such a drive. The respondent also submitted that the NDMC vide letter dated 21.10.2015 had duly informed the appellant about the position in this regard. At this juncture, the appellant became extremely irritated/annoyed and the Commission had to advise him to restrain himself and let the respondent make his submission as well as requested him to observe the decorum of the Court. The appellant, however, instead of sobering down got even more worked up, raised his voice and stated that he had no faith in the undersigned and, therefore, the matter may not be heard further and should be transferred to some other Information Commissioner. Interim

Decision:

6. The Commission is pained to note that in spite of caution and advice, the appellant failed to restrain himself. The undersigned, in the interest of justice, recluses from further hearing of this case. The case file may be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner for transferring the matter to some other Information Commissioner for hearing the matter.

7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sudhir Bhargava)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Hari Shankar Tripathi v. Delhi Police in Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000653/SB