Status of police action and conclusions reached in respect of a complaint relating to sale of fake tickets at Auto Expo 2012 was sought - Appellant: records which were made available by PIO & FAA have some discrepancy - CIC: inspection allowed21 Jan, 2014
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 15.11.2012 seeking information about the investigation in respect of a complaint relating to sale of fake tickets at Auto Expo 2012. In all, information was sought on 5 points. The CPIO responded pointwise on 6.12.2012.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 19.12.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA, while generally upholding the reply of PIO on 15.1.2013, directed the CPIO to recall a report from SHO, Tilak Marg and furnish a fresh reply/documents to the appellant within 10 working days. The appellant approached the Commission on 28.1.2013 in second appeal.
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 15.11.2012 and stated that this matter has to do with a widely reported instance of sale of fake tickets of Auto Expo in January 2012. The appellant stated that this matter was reported in some national newspapers. The appellant said that the information that he sought was about the status of the police action and the investigation made and the conclusions reached.
4. The appellant said that one of the dimensions that has emerged was the casual response from the CPIO dated 6.12.2012 as the CPIO stated that no complaint/FIR was registered in the jurisdiction of the concerned district police. The appellant said that subsequently when he approached the FAA, the FAA on 15.1.2013, though upholding the reply of PIO, directed the CPIO to recall a report from the SHO, Tilak Marg and furnish a fresh reply/documents to the appellant. The appellant stated that the statement itself was contradictory apart from the fact that it left him with the feeling that he has not been given the correct set of information.
5. The appellant stated that the records which were made available also appear to have some discrepancy. The appellant referred to order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 9.1.2012 and the papers pertaining to the police station. Against this background, the appellant said that his focus is on the following: (i) getting signed copy of the order dated 9.1.2012 of the Metropolitan Magistrate; and (ii) action against the respondent as per the RTI Act for having given a response which was not based on facts or documents on record.
6. The respondent stated that the CPIO had not withheld any information, instead, whatever information was available with him, the response was based on it. The respondent elaborated that this was not a case of fake tickets, but it was actually a matter of blackmarketing and this is how the police station’s action was undertaken and accordingly the responses of the CPIO and FAA were sent. The respondent further stated that in so far as the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate is concerned, they have with them only the conviction slip and that they do not have a copy of the order of the Magistrate.
7. The appellant particularly underlined the fact that the respondent had informed that no case/complaint/FIR was registered regarding the sale of fake tickets of Auto Expo, 2012. The appellant said that this was a wrong statement as also confirmed by a senior police officer as evident from the newspaper report that two persons had been arrested and that one of the two persons arrested had also been named.
8. The respondent reiterated that there was no case/complaint or FIR regarding the fake tickets and what the CPIO had stated was a correct statement.
9. The respondent is directed to (a) provide to the appellant all available information in context of the RTI application; (b) enable the appellant inspection of the relevant files and provide photocopies of the pertinent papers; and (c) comply with the above within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
Citation: Shri Rajiv Boolchand Jain v. Delhi Police in Decision No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000803/VS/05856