Updated status of complaint was sought - CIC: There is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned PIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act; PIO to furnish copy of order of FAA and reply of SHO

Information sought and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 18.04.2022 seeking the following information:-

“I had physically raised a complaint in Anand Vihar Police Station on 10/Feb/2022, Complaint No:89570022200087 & following are details of EO, Name: Mahesh Kumar Upadhyay, Rank: HC, PIS No: 28030067, Mobile:7011630297. I want to know the current status of my complaint as till now no action has been taken and not even a visit made by the Police Department. I had raised this complaint for the security of me & my daughters. Please provide me with the updated status of my complaint.”

The CPIO/Addl. DCP, Shahdara District, vide letter dated 06.05.2022 replied as under:-

“This is with reference to your application under RTI Act, 2005 received in this office on 19.04.2022 through online vide DEPOL/R/E/22/03955 dated 18.04.2022, on the above subject.

As per the report received from SHO/Anand Vihar, it is intimated that requisite complaint is still pending enquiry with HC Mahesh Kumar Upadhyay, PS Anand Vihar.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, The Complainant filed an online First Appeal dated 23.06.2022. The FAA/DCP, Shahdara District, vide order dated 18.07.2022 furnished the fresh report as received from SHO, Anand Vihar to the Complainant.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The following were present:

Complainant: Absent

Respondent: 1. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, ACP/Gandhi Nagar

2. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Inspector, PS Anand Vihar

The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Complainant from their official record. They further stated that enquiry in the matter has been completed and fresh report in this regard has been furnished by the FAA vide order dated 18.07.2022.

Decision:

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.

Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-

"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant.”

“30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.”

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.”

“37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other....

Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaints u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.

In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. However, PIO is directed to furnish copy of order of FAA dated 18.07.2022 and reply of SHO Anand Vihar dated 11.07.2022, to the Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission

Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Smt. Shashi Dhingra v. Delhi Police, Complaint No. CIC/MHOME/C/2022/639739; Date of Decision: 05.01.2024