Certified true copy of the action taken on EFIR and the reasons for delay - CIC: RTI application has not been attended appropriately as the point wise was poorly drafted causing ambiguity; Provide a clear and cogent point wise reply with updated facts
5 Jan, 2024
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2022 seeking information related to E-FIR 000226/2021 u/s 379 dated 02.04.2021 as under:
“1. Please provide me certified true copy of the action taken on EFIR No EFIR 000226/2021 u/s 379 dated 02.04.2021 para by para wise.
2. Please provide me certified true copy of every note, footnote, letters, notice or any type of information under sec 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act 2005 due to action taken on above FIR till date.
3. As per the Citizens Charter, in how many days I should expect reply on above FIR?
4. Please inform me the reasons under Sec 4 (1) (d) of the RTI Act for the delay if any, since I am now affected person as the amount in dispute is still not found.
5. If above FIR contents are found frivolous, kindly provide the certified true copy of supporting documents”
The CPIO, Outer District, Delhi vide letter dated 04.04.2022 furnished the report received from SHO/Sultanpuri.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2022. The FAA/DCP, Outer District, Delhi vide order dated 02.05.2022 upheld the CPIO's reply.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present with Shri Jatin Sharma
Respondent: 1. Shri Santosh Kumar, ACP, Outer District;
2. Shri O P Mandal, Inspector;
3. Shri Narender, SI, RTI Cell, Outer District
Shri Jatin Sharma stated that the information provided was not clear and satisfactory. If the FIR in question was untraceable then it implies that there is laxity on the part of the organisation/ personnel involved and action should be taken against the erring official (s). The Appellant also alleged that the concerned IO did not give proper attention to her complaint which pertained to a cyber fraud.
Shri Santosh Kumar tendered his apology for the ambiguity caused by the PIO’s response and clarified that while mentioning that the E FIR is untraced, the SHO, Sultanpuri implied that the accused are not traceable.
Decision:
In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the RTI application has not been attended appropriately as the point wise reply of the SHO, Sultanpuri dated 15.03.2022 was poorly drafted causing ambiguity for the Appellant. Therefore, the Commission directs the PIO, Outer District, Delhi Police to provide a clear and cogent point wise reply with the updated factual position to the Appellant by 15.01.2024 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Shikha Sharma v. Delhi Police, CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/125152; Date of Decision: 13.12.2023