Facts of the Case
The appellant filed an RTI application checking out for an appeal regarding the misuse of dowry on the date 20.10.2019. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the appellant filed First Appeal on the date 24.11.2019. The FAA/DCP, Outer District vide order dated 13.12.2019 justified the reply of the CPIO. Eventually, the PIO and Sr AO (Judicial), North West District, Rohini Courts vide letter dated 27.11.2019 informed the Appellant that the desired information related to judicial proceedings and opinion of the CPIO is sought on such matters.
Demonstrating that the information was excluded as per Rule 7 (iv), (vi), (viii) of the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, it was stated that information regarding specific judicial proceedings can be obtained by following the procedures laid down in the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders. Feeling resentful and discontented, the Appellant instantly approached the commission with a second appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant’s representative Shri Sunil Nigam dated 01.06.2021 in each matter and the same has been taken on record. A written submission was also received from the PIO and Addl. The Commissioner of Police (HQ) vide letter dated 01.06.2021 wherein it was stated that the RTI applications/first appeals were transferred to the PIO, Outer District, and FAA, Outer District vide communications dated 22.10.2019 and 28.11.2019 consequently. He said that finalized and sufficient information was not received by him.
He referred to the response of the PIO, Outer District, Delhi Police and stated that in each of the matters his application was transferred to the PIO, Rohini Court without examining the queries and providing him with obtainable information. He also expressed his displeasure against the reply of the PIO, Outer District, Delhi Police on the ground that factual position regarding availability of information was not provided and that in case any information was not available with them, the same should have been unfolded in the reply. He further stated that certified copies of the documents were not provided by PIO, Rohini Court.
The Respondent represented by Shri Sanwal Ram Meena, ACP, Outer District; Shri Ghanshyam, ASI, Police HQ, and Shri Ravi Tripathi, Rohini Court participated in the hearing. Shri Meena said that since the matter concerning the FIR filed by the Appellant has been pending trial before the Rohini Court, all the relevant documents have been transferred to the Court. He further referred to the reply provided on point no 2 of the RTI application under consideration CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/800018 and stated that the copies of the Standing Order No 330/2008 and circular no 48/2011 were provided to the Appellant on payment of the requisite fees.
The commission observed that the appellant had already been provided with certified copies and if anything is missing then he can freely approach through the judicial side. The Commission viewed that the proper point-wise information as per available record with the outer District Delhi Police was not provided by the PIO, Outer District. The first appeal was also decided in all the matters wherein the reply of the CPIO was instinctively concurred with.
The Commission decided to dispose of the second appeal and directed FFA and DCP to quickly re-examine the first appeal and to give a rightful opportunity to the Appellant for hearing his side. The commission also finalized a date on which every required information should be assembled.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.