Number of matrimonial cases where mediators recommended for registration of FIR - appellant argued that mediators had gone beyond their powers and recommended registration of FIR - CIC: no wild goose hunt just to confirm the appellant’s assumption

Number of matrimonial cases where mediators recommended for registration of FIR was denied stating mediators have no authority for recommending registration of FIR - appellant argued that in some cases, mediators had gone beyond their powers and recommended registration of FIR and wanted the respondents to check all their files - PIO: this would cause disproportionate diversion of the resources - CIC: PIO cannot be expected to start wild goose hunt just to confirm the appellant’s assumption; a copy of the procedure being followed by the mediator for such settlement cases to be provided

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed his RTI application dated 30.09.2012 with the SPIO, Delhi State Legal Services Authority seeking certain information in respect of “Mediation in Matrimonial cases for DSLSA, DHCLSC, Dist. Legal Service Authority, Tis Hazari and District Legal Services Committees at Tis Hazari, Patiala House Courts, Karkardooma and Rohini Courts, CAW Cells, Polices Stations at Delhi.”

2. This application was transferred to the concerned CPIOs/SPIOs, including the CPIO, Delhi Police Headquarters, New Delhi.

3. The CAPIO, Delhi Police Headquarters, in turn, vide his letter dated 15.10.2012 transferred this application to the CPIOs of all the district units of Delhi Police u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, including the CPIO of North District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi - Respondents in the instant case.

4. The CPIO, North West District accordingly vide his letter dated 05.11.2012 furnished the pointwise information/reply to the Appellant.

5. The Appellant, however, being aggrieved by the reply/information given by the CPIO against point Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of his RTI application, filed an appeal dated 21.11.2012 before the Appellate Authority.

6. The Appellate Authority disposed of this appeal vide his order dated 24.12.2012 wherein he, while observing that there is no ground to disagree with the CPIO, directed the CPIO to consider the points mentioned by the Appellant in his appeal before him (Appellate Authority) and furnish the relevant information to the Appellant.

7. The CPIO accordingly vide his letter dated 09.01.2013 furnished a fresh reply to the Appellant providing further clarification/information on the points in question.

8. The Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal before the Commission stating that the reply given by the CPIO in respect of point Nos. 11, 12 & 13 is not “satisfactory” and is not as per the information sought in said points.

9. During the hearing, the information sought by the Appellant in point Nos. 11, 12 & 13 of his RTI application - subject matter of the present appeal before the Commission - was discussed as given below:

Point No. 11:

10. In this point, the Appellant had sought to know the “Number of cases where Mediators recommended for registration of FIR (Mediator wise)”. The CPIO informed him that “Mediator’s have no authority for recommendation of registration of FIR.” During the hearing, the Respondents reiterated their stand that the Mediators have no authority for recommendation of registration of FIR. They only record the result (“successful” or “fail”.) of the settlement exercise carried out between the parties. The Appellant, however, disputed this statement of the Respondents, and asserted that they (Mediators) in some cases had gone beyond their powers and recommended registration of FIR. The Respondents then asked the Appellant to identify the specific case for them to take appropriate action. The Appellant, however, insisted that the Respondents should check all their files/records dealing with mediation cases and find out whether there is any case where Mediator had made recommendation for registration of FIR. The Respondents expressed their inability to do so as it would not be practically possible for them and would also disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

11. The Commission agrees with the Respondents. The Respondents cannot be expected to start wild goose hunt just to confirm the Appellant’s assumption that there are cases wherein the Mediator had recommended registration of FIR. If the Appellant is aware of any such case, he may, as advised by the Respondents, bring it to the notice of the Respondents and then seek specific information about that case, if he so desires. But he cannot ask the Respondents to find out such cases for him. RTI is not meant for such purposes. The CPIO is, however, directed to provide a copy of the procedure being followed by the Mediator for such settlement cases to the Appellant within 1 week of receipt of this order.

Point No. 12:

12. In this point the Appellant sought to know the “total amount of settlement involved (paid by husband and his family) in the cases successfully mediated by the Mediators…” The CPIO informed the Appellant that there is no such record regarding amount of settlement (paid by husband and his family). The Appellant argued that there are only 3 Mediators and that all he wants to know is the total figure of settlement amount which can be easily provided to him by the Respondents. The Respondents reiterated that no such record is maintained by them since such settlements do not fall under their domain.

13. Since the record related to information sought is admittedly not present with the Respondents, its disclosure cannot be authorised.

Point No. 13:

14. In this point the Appellant wanted to know the breakup of amount of settlement as mentioned in point no. 11 of the RTI application. The CPIO informed the Appellant that this query is not applicable in view of the reply of point No. 11 above.

15. In view of the above, no disclosure can be made with regard to this point.

(Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri S.K. Virmani v. Delhi Police (North West District) in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000403