CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01062 dated 14.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19
Appellant - Shri Manoj Mehta
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP) Police Control Room
Facts: By an application of 16.4.07 addressed to the DCP, Police Control Room (PCR) Shri Manoj Mehta sought the following information:
“1. From which telephone number this complaint was made?
2. What is the correct time of complaint?
3. What is the subject of complaint?
4. Who is the complainant?
Sir, I require this information in regard to litigation. I will be highly obliged.”
To this Shri Mehta received a response on 4.5.07 refusing information on the following grounds:
“Your request to provide the information regarding PCR call made on 21.2.2007 has been considered and could not be acceded to under section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, as it is a 3rd party information who has opposed to provide the same to you under RTI Act, 2005.”
Aggrieved Shri Mehta moved his first appeal on 18.5.07 before DCP (Operations), PHQ who in his order of 31.5.07 upheld the decision of the CPIO with the following words:
“I am to inform you that the information asked for, it exempted from disclosure under section 11 of RTI Act-2005 as it is a 3rd party information who has opposed to provide the same to you. Hence, the requisite information can not be provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
Appellant’s prayer before us, in his second appeal, is as below:
“It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal of the appellant kindly may be accepted and order dated 4.5.2007 and 31.5.2007 kindly may be set-aside and direct the Public Information Officer, Police Control Room, Delhi to supply the details of the information as prayed to the appellant. The appellant is not the third party in the present matter.”
The appeal was heard on 15.12.08. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri Bhupinder Mehta
Respondents
Ms. Shanti, ACP cum APIO
Shri Satya Prakash, ASI (RTI Cell) PCR
We have received requests for exemption from personal appearance from Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP (Security) and DCP-cum-PIO (PCR). These have been accepted. Shri Satya Prakash ASI has submitted that he has received the notice of hearing only on Friday the 12th Dec. 2008. However, a written response was prepared on the same day and is submitted in the hearing. In this response, it is clarified that since the caller was a third party, a notice was issued to her u/s 11(1) in light of the provisions of sec. 8(1) sub sec. (g) & (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this case of the third party Ms. Sonal Mehta raised an objection on 23.4.2007 stating that copy of her complaint dated 21.2.2007 may not be provided to Shri Manoj Mehta or indeed to anyone.
DECISION NOTICE
We have received a number of applications seeking disclosure of the record of calls to the PCR. Our decision in this matter in a Decision dated 5.12.2008 in File No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00967; Smt. Asha Devi vs. Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) PCR has been as follows:
“It remains obscure that how simply providing a record of calls received in the PCR could impede the process either of investigation or of prosecution, which will qualify the information for exemption from disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. Since it is an established fact that such calls were, in fact, received, even though it is the case of respondents that these were illusory tactics to allay investigation against the criminal, and the fact of receiving calls is admitted, simply providing the record of such calls cannot make a difference to the prosecution effort, but can, instead, be used to facilitate it.
Records such as record of calls received in PCR are, in fact, public documents. Their disclosure is incumbent unless they have been made in confidence in which case such a condition will require to be recorded. It is learned that the local police are regularly pleading Section 8 (1) (h) to seek exemption from disclosure of PCR calls. Such a plea cannot be made on the basis of 8 (1) (h) unless it is clearly established that such disclosure would impede the process of investigation or prosecution and not simply that the record will be used in defence by an accused.
The information sought by appellant Ms Asha Devi will, therefore, be provided to her within 10 working days from the date of issue of this decision notice. This Appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will be no cost.”
In this case exemption sought has been under Sec 8(1) (j) and recourse taken to Sec 11(1). The third party has raised an objection specifically with regard to disclosing the contents of her complaint of 31.2.07 made during the call. There has been no other request for keeping her identity or particulars confidential. Under the circumstances 3 of the 4 questions raised by the appellant Shri Manoj Mehta are open to disclosure. This information may, therefore, be supplied to appellant Shri Manoj Mehta within ten working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. There will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
15.12.2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
15.12.2008
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01062 dated 14.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19
Appellant - Shri Manoj Mehta
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP) Police Control Room
Facts: By an application of 16.4.07 addressed to the DCP, Police Control Room (PCR) Shri Manoj Mehta sought the following information:
“1. From which telephone number this complaint was made?
2. What is the correct time of complaint?
3. What is the subject of complaint?
4. Who is the complainant?
Sir, I require this information in regard to litigation. I will be highly obliged.”
To this Shri Mehta received a response on 4.5.07 refusing information on the following grounds:
“Your request to provide the information regarding PCR call made on 21.2.2007 has been considered and could not be acceded to under section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, as it is a 3rd party information who has opposed to provide the same to you under RTI Act, 2005.”
Aggrieved Shri Mehta moved his first appeal on 18.5.07 before DCP (Operations), PHQ who in his order of 31.5.07 upheld the decision of the CPIO with the following words:
“I am to inform you that the information asked for, it exempted from disclosure under section 11 of RTI Act-2005 as it is a 3rd party information who has opposed to provide the same to you. Hence, the requisite information can not be provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
Appellant’s prayer before us, in his second appeal, is as below:
“It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal of the appellant kindly may be accepted and order dated 4.5.2007 and 31.5.2007 kindly may be set-aside and direct the Public Information Officer, Police Control Room, Delhi to supply the details of the information as prayed to the appellant. The appellant is not the third party in the present matter.”
The appeal was heard on 15.12.08. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri Bhupinder Mehta
Respondents
Ms. Shanti, ACP cum APIO
Shri Satya Prakash, ASI (RTI Cell) PCR
We have received requests for exemption from personal appearance from Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP (Security) and DCP-cum-PIO (PCR). These have been accepted. Shri Satya Prakash ASI has submitted that he has received the notice of hearing only on Friday the 12th Dec. 2008. However, a written response was prepared on the same day and is submitted in the hearing. In this response, it is clarified that since the caller was a third party, a notice was issued to her u/s 11(1) in light of the provisions of sec. 8(1) sub sec. (g) & (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this case of the third party Ms. Sonal Mehta raised an objection on 23.4.2007 stating that copy of her complaint dated 21.2.2007 may not be provided to Shri Manoj Mehta or indeed to anyone.
DECISION NOTICE
We have received a number of applications seeking disclosure of the record of calls to the PCR. Our decision in this matter in a Decision dated 5.12.2008 in File No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00967; Smt. Asha Devi vs. Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) PCR has been as follows:
“It remains obscure that how simply providing a record of calls received in the PCR could impede the process either of investigation or of prosecution, which will qualify the information for exemption from disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. Since it is an established fact that such calls were, in fact, received, even though it is the case of respondents that these were illusory tactics to allay investigation against the criminal, and the fact of receiving calls is admitted, simply providing the record of such calls cannot make a difference to the prosecution effort, but can, instead, be used to facilitate it.
Records such as record of calls received in PCR are, in fact, public documents. Their disclosure is incumbent unless they have been made in confidence in which case such a condition will require to be recorded. It is learned that the local police are regularly pleading Section 8 (1) (h) to seek exemption from disclosure of PCR calls. Such a plea cannot be made on the basis of 8 (1) (h) unless it is clearly established that such disclosure would impede the process of investigation or prosecution and not simply that the record will be used in defence by an accused.
The information sought by appellant Ms Asha Devi will, therefore, be provided to her within 10 working days from the date of issue of this decision notice. This Appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will be no cost.”
In this case exemption sought has been under Sec 8(1) (j) and recourse taken to Sec 11(1). The third party has raised an objection specifically with regard to disclosing the contents of her complaint of 31.2.07 made during the call. There has been no other request for keeping her identity or particulars confidential. Under the circumstances 3 of the 4 questions raised by the appellant Shri Manoj Mehta are open to disclosure. This information may, therefore, be supplied to appellant Shri Manoj Mehta within ten working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. There will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
15.12.2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
15.12.2008
No comments:
Post a Comment