A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

CIC: Provide the minutes of the review DPC making sure that information which is related to the Appellant should be furnished; Any other information which is exempted from disclosure must be redacted u/s 10 of RTI Act and not be disclosed to the Appellant

Appellant: I have submitted my personal application to PMO and without hearing of witness or awaiting outcome representation, I was fired from Air Force - CIC: PIO has provided the information which is available on record; No further intervention needed

Personnel allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to parliamentary question - Respondent: A speculative request - CIC: Desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed

Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing

Refusal by Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) to provide information related to the appointment of Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, accused of heinous crimes against women, as Executive Director in Public Sector Banks - CIC: Denail u/s 8(1)(j) is justified

What does the term “Relevant Trades” in eligibility criteria mean? - CIC: Requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or through FAQs; Advisory issued u/s 25(5) to disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” & to create a FAQ section on website

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held

26 Sep, 2024

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.02.2023 seeking the following information:

Copy of Final report regarding Case No 16073 filed by me or the action taken on it so that further action can be taken within time. (main part of Original application seeking certain information in Hindi loosely translated).

The applicant alleged unsatisfactory action like non recording of statement and collection of digital evidence.

The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.03.2023 stating as under:

“The complaint dated 25.10.2022 received in this Directorate (Diary No. 16073) has been forwarded to Special Commissioner (Vigilance). Delhi Police vide this Directorate Letter No. 10/10/2021/DOV/14759 dated 30.11.2022 (Copy enclosed; for further necessary action at their end.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 28.04.2023, held as under: “The PIO has submitted that reply of the above RTI was closely pertained to the Delhi Police hence it was forwarded to them vide letter No. RTI/IV/2022/DOV/3903 dated 28.03.2023. The complaint referred in the RTI (Diary No. 16073 dated 25.10.2022) has also, already been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vigilance), Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110 001 for further necessary action at their end. The appellant has stated that he has received the reply of his RTI application. The reply of the PIO seems to be in order and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present in person.

Respondent: Mr. J P Singh, Asst. Director (Vig.)/ PIO present in person.

A written submission dated 25.07.2024 (copy marked to the Appellant) has been filed by the Respondent, which is taken, contents of the same are reproduced below for the sake of clarity:

“(i) That an application dated nil of one Sh. Gopal Agrawal, Ayudha Foundation, was received in this office under RTI Act, 2005 vide Diary No. 1485 dated 20.03.2023 (Copy enclosed) wherein information was sought regarding Complaint (Diary No. 16073) against some Police Officers of Delhi Police.

(ii) That the information as per record was duly provided to the applicant vide this office letter/reply no. F. No. RTI/IV/2022/DOV/3903- 04 dated 28.03.2023 (copy enclosed).

(iii) That the applicant Sh. Gopal Agrawal preferred 1st Appeal under RTI Act vide Dy. No. 1764 dated 10.04.2023. During the hearing of 1st Appeal on 27.04.2023 at 3.30 PM, Sh. Gopal Agrawal, the appellant, stated that he has received the reply of the RTI application. The First Appellate Authority observed that the reply of the PIO seemed to be in order and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and accordingly, the appeal was disposed off vide order No. F.1/1/FAA/24/2023/DOV/5291- 5292 dated 28.04.2023 (copy enclosed).

(iv) Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the complaint dated 25.10.2022 (Dy. No. 16073) referred in the RTI application (Dy. No. 1485 dated 20.03.2023) of the applicant pertained to Delhi Police and hence, the same was forwarded to Spl. Commissioner (Vigilance), Delhi Police, PHQ, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi, for necessary action as per extant guidelines, vide this Directorate's letter no. 14759 dated 30.11.2022 (copy enclosed).

In light of the submissions made hereinabove, the Commission may kindly consider the matter for closure, accordingly.”

Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that relevant documents in support of action taken report has not been provided to him till date even though he has filed the subjected complaint before the Respondent Public Authority. His complaint was related to the bribery relate matter as demanded from him.

Respondent while inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission explained that it has already been informed to the

Appellant that his complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police vide Letter No. 10/10/2021/DOV/14759 dated 30.11.2022 for necessary action. The Appellant may get further information in the matter by filing fresh RTI application wi

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant’s main contention in this Appeal was non-receipt of complete information. In response to which, the Respondents clarified the factual position that complaint of the Appellant under reference has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police vide Letter No. 10/10/2021/DOV/14759 dated 30.11.2022 for necessary action, therefore, they are unable to provide any additional information. Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government.

The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant.

No relief can be granted in this matter

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Gopal Agrawal v. Directorate of Vigilance, Level-4, C wing, Delhi Secretariat, File No: CIC/DVAAC/A/2023/120683; Date of Decision : 31.07.2024

Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.