CIC/DS/C/2010/000332 - Virjoo Vs TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)

                                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION                                        Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
                                            Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
                                               
                                                  File No.CIC/DS/C/2010/000332
                 Appellant : Shri Virajoo Kumar
                 
                 Public Authority : Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
                 Date of Hearing : 25.10.2010
                
                 Date of Decision : 25.10.2010
FACTS :
The matter is called for hearing today dated 25.10.2010.  Appellant not present.  The public authority is represented by Shri D.P.S. Rajesh, Dy Advisor (CPIO), Shri Saji Abraham, Joint Advisor & Shri S.P. Bhatt, SRO (Coord).

2. It  is noticed that  vide RTI application dated nil,  the appellant  had requested for  information on 05 paras in respect  of  Reliance Mobile No 09304549785.  In the first para, he had sought information about the money spent  by  him on  Recharge  coupon.   He  had  also  sought  associated information in paras 02, 03, 04 & 05 of the RTI application.
3. The CPIO had informed the appellant vide letter dated 27.4.2009 that the requested information was not being maintained by TRAI.  The appellant did not file the first appeal and has straightaway moved this Commission.

4. During the hearing, Shri Saji Abraham submits that u/s 12 (1) (a) of TRAI, 1997, TRAI can call for such information from the service provider as it needs for its own purposes by passing an order in writing but
the information requested for by the appellant is not wanted by TRAI, and, therefore,  it  is  not  bound  to  call  for  this  information  from the  service provider.  Besides, he also relies on two decisions of this Commission in this regard  wherein  such  requests  were  turned  down.   (File  Nos  are CIC/AD/A/2009/000987 and File No PBA/06/2003/000203).  His third and last submission is that the information requested for by the appellant was available to him at the time of making the calls and, therefore, the present appeal is infructuous. 
5. The word information is defined in the section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. As per this clause, ‘information’ also includes ‘information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being enforced.’  In other words,  if TRAI has authority under any law to access information from Reliance Company, it can access that  information  for  onward  transmission  to  the  information  seeker. According to Shri Abraham, u/s 12 of the TRAI Act,  1997, TRAI has the authority to call  for information from the service provider by passing an  order in writing but this information should be such as is needed by TRAI for its own purposes.  In other words, according to him, TRAI can not seek information from a private entity for servicing the RTI Act. 

6. Clause (a) of section 12 (1) is reproduced below :“(a) call upon any service provider at any time to furnish in writing such information or explanation relating to its affairs as the Authority may require”
Shri Abraham lays emphasis on the last 05 words of the above clause viz ‘as the authority may require.’  It is his interpretation that this expression means that TRAI can call for information only when it needs it for its own purposes and not for the purposes of supplying it to the information seeker under the provisions of the RTI act.7. We are afraid, the construction put on clause (a) by Shri Abraham is not  correct.   According to us,  the true meaning of the expression ‘as the Authority may require’  is ‘as the authority may direct’.   In other  words, TRAI can call for such information from a private entity as it needs for its own purposes as also for the purpose of servicing the RTI Act.

8. The above interpretation also finds  support  in the judgment  dated 25.9.2009 of the Delhi High Court in WP (Civil) No 765 of 2007 (Poorna Prajna  Public  School  Vs  CIC)  wherein  the  High  Court  favoured  wider interpretation of the word ‘information’.  The relevant part of para 16 of the judgment is extracted below :-
“Further, information which a public authority can access under any other law from a private body is also ‘information’ u/s 2 (f).   The  public  authority  should  be  entitled  to  ask  for  the  said information under law from the private body.  Details available with a public authority about  a private body are ‘information’  and details which can be accessed by the public authority from a private body are also ‘information’  but  the law should permit  and entitle the public authority to ask for the said details from a private body.”


DECISION
9. In view of  the above,  we are of  the opinion that  the appellant  is legally entitled to seek the information from TRAI u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act and TRAI is mandated to call for such information from the service provider (Reliance Company in this case) as mentioned hereinabove and furnish the same to the appellant.   We,  respectfully,  disagree with the view taken by other Single Benches of the Commission.

10. Before parting with this matter, we would, however, like to observe that  collection,  collation  and  transmission  of  information  by  the  public authority, or, for that matter, by a private entity, is a costly exercise and puts strain  on  their  resources.   The  information  seeker  must  seek  only  that
information  which  he  genuinely  needs  or  which  is  of  any  use  to  him. Wanton demand for information is against the spirit of the RTI Act.  Given  the  fact  that  the  appellant  has  not  appeared  before  the  Commission  to convass  his  case  goes  to  show that  he  is  not-serious  about  the  matter.
Besides, we also find some merit in Shri Abraham’s submission that some of the  requested  information  is  already  available  with  the  appellant.   The appellant  is  not  before  the  Commission  to  clarify  the  position.   In  the premises,  we  direct  that  information in regard to para  01 only may be
provided to the appellant after accessing it from the service provider.

11. The order of the Commission may be complied with in 06 weeks.

                                                                                                           Sd/-
                                                                                                   (M.L. Sharma)
                                                                                     Central Information Commissioner


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.

(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :1. Shri D.P.S. Rajesh
                                  Dy Advisor (CPIO),
                                  Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,
                                  Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
                                  Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road,
                                  New Delhi-110002
                             
                              2. Shri Virjoo Kumar
                                  C/o Shri Saryug Prasad,
                                  Maharajganj, Guljarbagh,
                                  Patna-7

CIC/LS/A/2011/902758 - Shri Yash Pal Vs TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India)

                                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION                                      
                                         Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
                                          Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

                                                                                 File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/902758

Appellant:      Shri Yash Pal
Respondent:  Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

Date of hearing:    29.12.2011
Date of decision:  29.12.2011

FACTS
The matter is heard today dated 29.12.2011. Appellant not present. TRAI is represented by Shri Saji Abraham, Jt. Adviser, Shri D. P. S. Rajesh, Dy. Adviser and Shri Rajesh Narayan, Section Officer.

2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 15.6.2011, appellant had sought following information:-
"1. Certified copy of call details of following numbers. Call details should include incoming as well as outgoing details. Registration details of following numbers (name, address, date of activation, etc).
a) 9210023535 (From April 2006- till date).
b) 9716682799 (From April 2009- till date).
c) 011-26215249 (From April 2005- till date)
2. Certified copy of the SMS details (send and received) of the following numbers:-
a) 9210023535 (From April 2006- till date). b) 9716682799 (From April 2009- till date)."

3. Vide letter dated 15th July 2011, CPIO had refused to disclose any information to the appellant on ground that he was seeking 3rd party information. First appeal was dismissed by AA vide order dated 1st Sept.’ 2011.

4. The present appeal is directed against the above orders.

5. During the hearing, Shri Saji Abraham makes the following submissions:-
(a) that TRAI is not holding this information;
(b) that even if TRAI were to seek this information from service providers, latter cannot disclose this information as they have to maintain confidentiality of information in terms of the license conditions;
(c ) that TRAI has already transferred this matter to DoT as the service providers come under the jurisdiction of DoT; and
(d) that TRAI has no authority to call for this information from the service providers under law.

6. We would like to observe that every time an appeal is filed against the orders of the CPIO and AA of TRAI, TRAI officers present before the Commission repeatedly take the same line as has been enumerated herein above. I would also like to bring on record that these very submissions were made before this Commission by TRAI officers in File No. CIC/DS/C/2010/000332 (Virajoo Kumar vs. TRAI) but this Commission had rejected these submissions and vide order dated 25.10.2010, had directed the CPIO of the TRAI to call for requisite information from the service providers concerned, subject to its availability, and to pass it to the appellant therein. Paras 09 and 10 of the said order are extracted below:-
"9. In view of the above, we are of opinion that appellant is legally entitled to seek information from TRAI u/s 2 (f) of RTI Act and TRAI is mandated to call for such information from service provider (Reliance Company in this case) as mentioned hereinabove and furnish the same to appellant. We, respectfully, disagree with view taken by other Single Benches of Commission.
10. Before parting with this matter, we would, however, like to observe that collection, collation and transmission of information by public authority, or, for that matter, by a private entity, is a costly exercise and puts strain on their resources. The information seeker must seek only that information which he genuinely needs or which is of any use to him. Wanton demand for information is against spirit of RTI Act. Given fact that the appellant has not appeared before the Commission to caonvass his case goes to show that he is not-serious about the matter. Besides, we also find some merit in Shri Abraham's submission that some of the requested information is already available with appellant. The appellant is not before the Commission to clarify position. In premises, we direct that information in regard to para 01 only may be provided to appellant after accessing it from service provider."

7. I have no reason to deviate from ratio of decision extracted above. The objections raised by TRAI officers present before Commission are rejected. TRAI is hereby directed to write to service providers concerned in exercise of its powers u/s 12(1) TRAI Act, 1997, and call for requisite information, of course, subject to its availability with Service providers, & pass on this information to appellant herein. In case service providers inform CPIO that they are not holding requested information, appellant may be informed accordingly

8. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks time.

9. Before parting with this matter, I would like to add that Review Petition purported to have been filed by TRAI in Virajoo Kumar case, may be treated as non-est, as Commission's Regulations do not provide for Review Procedure.
                                                                                                            Sd/-
                                                                                                    (M.L. Sharma)
                                                                                        Central Information Commissioner

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.

(K.L. Das)
Deputy Registrar


Address of parties :-
1.The CPIO
TRAI, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Old Minto Road, New Delhi-110002

2. Shri Yash Pal
216, Pkt-B, Ph-2, MIG Flat, Sec-14,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110078

Decision on Call Records - Manoj Mehta Vs DCP - Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01062

                                  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

Decision on Call Records - Ranjit Bhattacharjee Vs BSNL - CIC/AD/A/2009/000637

                                                    Central Information Commission
                                                        CIC/AD/A/2009/000637
                                                          Dated June 23, 2009

Name of the Applicant:  Mr.Ranjit Bhattacharjee

Name of the Public Authority:  BSNL, Silchar

Background
1.  The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.10.12.08 with the CPIO, BSNL, Silchar. He requested for details of incoming and outgoing calls in respect of 2 landline and one mobile number. The CPIO replied on 5.2.09 denying the information as it related to third parties. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.25.2.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. The CPIO replied on 27.3.09 stating that third parties were requested to intimate their consent whether the detailed call records against their telephone Nos. can be disclosed or not to which they had intimated their written objection and asked not to supply the detailed call records for the period 1.5.08 to 13.5.08 or any other period to maintain their privacy. He also added that the matter is subjudice. The Appellate Authority replied on 28.3.09 rejecting the appeal. The Applicant filed a second appeal dt.29.4.09 before CIC.

2.  The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for June 23, 2009.

3.  Mr. S. Venkatesan, Dy. General Manager (P&A) cum CPIO represented the Public Authority.

4.  The Applicant was present during the hearing with his wife.

Decision The Appellant submitted that he and his wife have been falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute between his elder son and daughter-in-law and that serious allegations have been leveled against them in the court by his daughter in law. He stated that they have been defamed in the society and that they need to clear their names and need the information for filing in the court. In this connection he wanted the details of incoming and outgoing calls between the telephones subscribed to by his daughter-in-law’s parents/uncle viz. Silchar No.224292, Hailakandi 223147, Mobile 9435213071 and mobile Phone No.9990005604 used by his daughter in law, from 1.5.08 to 13.5.08 when she was staying with her husband at Roorkee, since the daughter in law in one of her statements provided to the court , stated that with “great difficulty I got across to my parents” thereby suggesting that she was being stopped by force from contacting her parents. The Appellant’s contention was that his daughter in law used to be alone at home the whole day when his son was out at work and she was free to call her parents at any time and, therefore, the question of contacting her parents with ‘difficulty’ is a lie. The Appellant also stated that he is not interested in any other call details except for those between his daughter in law and her parents during that particular 13 day period to prove their innocence.

The Commission on careful consideration of the request and convinced that the very old couple who were present at the hearing have a right to clear their name which, according to the Appellant has been ‘defamed’, directed the Respondent to give only the details of the outgoing calls from the roaming mobile phone of the daughter in law to her parents’ telephone numbers including day and date and duration for the 13 day period. (Details of incoming calls are technically not available). The Respondent handed over these details immediately to the Appellant in the presence of the Commissioner in respect of the outgoing calls from the roaming telephone no. of the Appellant’s daughter in law to her parents during the said period.

5. The appeal is disposed off.

                                                                                     (Annapurna Dixit)
                                                                               Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(G. Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar

Cc:
1. Mr.Ranjit Bhattacharjee
Flat No.142, New Ashiana Apartments, Plot No.10, Sector-6, Dwarka Delhi 110 075

2. Mr.S.P.Chakraborty  The APIO & DE (A)  Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 
O/o General manager E-10B Building, Daccai patty Silchar – 1 Assam

3. Mr.S.C.Ojha
The Appellate Authority & General Manager (A) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
O/o Chief General Manager, Assam Telecom Circle, Pan Bazar, Guwahati 1
4. Officer in charge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC

Decision on Call Records - Rajendra Yadav Vs - J.B.Singh No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002697/5969

                                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                                Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
                                         Opp. Ber Sarai Market, New Delhi - 110067.
                                                     Tel: +91-11-26161796 

                                                                    Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002697/5969
                                                                   Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002697

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant:   Mr. Rajendra Yadav
Neha Nursery, NH-8, Shankar Chowk, DLF-III, Gurgaon (Haryana)
Respondent:   Mr. J.B.Singh
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Edu.)  Directorate of Education, GNCTD
O/o the Dy. Director of Education (SW-B) Najafgarh, New Delhi

RTI application filed on : 24/08/2009
PIO replied : 23/09/2009
First appeal filed on : Not mentioned
First Appellate Authority order : 09/10/2009
Second Appeal received on : 23/10/2009
Hearing Notice issued on : 05/11/2009
Hearing held on : 17/12/2009

The Appellant had sought following information from PIO, Directorate of Education:


Information sought  
A Certificate should be given to Mr. Rajendra Yadav if he has received children education allowance. If he has not received then no payment certificate be issued. 
PIO’s reply Children Education allowance for 2008-09 had not been made. No payment certificate had been sent to Principal, GBSS Sector-3, R.K.Puram on 24.08.09. However you can obtain a copy of the same by payment of Rs.2/-.

Information sought  
Kindly provide GPF Statement of Mr. Rahendra Yadav for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09.
PIO’s reply GPF A/C no. SCH/44542.  GPF statement for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 has not been issued by Accounts Officer no.-II, R.K.Puram.

Information sought  
Please send my ACR folder from 1979 to 2009 to R.K.Puram, Sector-3, School. 
PIO’s reply 
No letter from Mr. Rajendra Yadav and his Principal is received in the regard. As soon as we receive the letter we shall send the folder.


Information sought  
Photocopy of any direction the Directorate of Education has issued in respect of my above three points. PIO’s reply 
In respect of question one Mr. Rajendera came to office and subsequently the certificate was sent to Principal/vice principal. He never came in respect of question no. 2 & 3.

Information sought  
Call details of phone number 25319800 and bills copy for last six months. 
PIO’s reply 
Bill are of 6 pages and call records 45, hence you may obtain the information by depositing Rs.2/- per page.


Information sought  
Photocopies of bills/vouchers of the payments made for the purchase of sports’ goods.
PIO’s reply 
Sought information is of 90 pages, hence you can  obtain photocopies by paying Rs.2/- per page.

Grounds for First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The FAA ordered that, “Neither the APIO nor the Appellant are present. The perusal of the information provided by the PIO(SW-B) reveals that it is satisfactory.”

Grounds for Second Appeal:
Wrong and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Yadav;
Respondent: Mr. J.B.Singh, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Edu.);


The PIO has given certain information but is now directed to give following information:
 1- Query-3: The PIO has replied that the principal had not received any letter from the appellant. The Appellant has produced evidence of delivering three letters to the School. The PIO is directed to take appropriate action with the school authorities and provide information on this query to the appellant.

Decision: The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as mentioned above to the appellant before 30 December 2009.


This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free cost as per Section 7(6) of
RTI Act.

                                                                                   Shailesh Gandhi
                                                                            Information Commissioner
                                                                                   17 December 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)k.j.

Decision on Call Records - Shama Praveen Vs Delhi Police - No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00299

                               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00299 dated 26-2-2007
                              Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19


Complainant:  Smt. Shama Praveen
Respondent:  Delhi Police.

FACTSBy an application of 13-11-2006 Mrs. Shama Praveen of Julahan Street, Bijnore applied to the DCP (West) and PIO, New Delhi regarding a complaint of 25-7-06 filed by her brother Shri Zafaryab Ahmed against the Investigating Officer (IO) in a case in Uttam Nagar, District West as follows:

“a) Provide certified copy of enquiry/ investigation report of aforementioned complaint.

b) Provide certified copy of action taken report in case of deliberately furnishing incorrect information under RTI Act’ 2005 that is that FIR No. 712/2000 was registered under 156(3)
Cr. P. C. Whereas it is an admitted position that FIR was registered by6 officials of P.S. Uttam Nagar and there is nothing to show that FIR was registered on the direction of court under 156(3) Cr. P. C. (RE: Appeal No. (6) RTIA/06 (WD)/3779/SO/SR, dated 28.6.2006).

c) What action has been taken against the HC, IO and other police officials for misusing official position deliberately filling charge sheet and for extracting R. 6000/-? Whether scientific tests as requested by us have been used to ascertain the truth.

d) Provide certified copies of incoming and out going phone call records of the phone numbers furnished by us vide previous communications and request was made for their call log print out vide aforementioned complaint so as to confirm nexus between police officials and plotters (Accused in my dowry case). If call records has not been taken to ascertain the truth what other methods has been used to ascertain the truth.

e) If enquiry/investigation/action on the matters referred in Para a), b), C) & d) has not been conducted/ taken reasons for the same may be spelt out. If no action has been taken, what is the policy of Delhi Police in dealing with complaints against its officials who misuse their official position for unlawful gain and implicate the innocent citizens in false and frivolous cases and drag them before the courts so as to harass and humiliate them at the instance of rival party who were already accused in dowry case.

f) Provide complete information, procedure, policies, norms and grounds for using scientific methods in investigation/enquiry in the day to day functioning in case I) offenses offended by citizens and ii) when the complaint is related to corruption, misuse of official position and the violation of human rights by the officials of Delhi Police.

g) Provide copy of the compromise letter and or basis/documents on the grounds of which police have been claiming that parties have compromised and that could have legitimately led to a decision not to initiate any action against the police officials for abusing his official  position and derelictions of duties.

h) Provide certified copies of entire records including notings made by concerned persons who have dealt the case and material submitted by us and other concerned parties during the pendency of the said complaint.
i) Information/procedure for filing a complaint with international agencies like “UNHRC” Amnesty International etc. I request to either provide the required information or transfer this application to concerned department/ organization, which can provide me with the required information.”

To this she received a reply on 1-12-06 from Shri Robin Hibu, CPIO & DCP (West) as follows:

“a) Your request of providing of certified copy of enquiry/investigation report conducted on the complaint dated 25.7.06 of Shri Zafaryab Ahmed, has been considered in this office, but  could not be acceded to as this is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1) (e) & (g) of the “Right to Information Act, 2005”.

b) A case vide FIR No. 712/2000 u/s 324/34 IPC registered/investigated at P.S. Uttam Nagar, as regard to action u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. It is pertinent to mention here what a complaint of Sh. Zafaryab Ahmed was received at O. S. Uttam Nagar which was already moved by him in the Hon’ble Court of Bijnour (UP) u/s 156(3) Cr. P. C. alleging therein that he and his family members has been defamed and cheated by Smt. Keshar Jahan @ Neha and others and this complaint pertain to FIR No. 1094-C/2000 registered at P. S. Kotwali (UP). On receipt of this report at P. S. Uttam Nagar, the legal opinion was sought from prosecution Branch and no action was suggested to be taken in this matter at P. S. Uttam Nagar. Hence the case file of this matter has been returned back to P. S. Kotwali Bijnour (UP) thought S. S. P. Bijnour  (UP) vide, this office letter No. 13632/ SO/W dated 6.8.2003 for further investigation and furnishing his report to concerned CJM.

c) Inquiry has been conducted and nothing found wrong against the I. O. and other officials.

d) The matter relates to year 2000 and nothing can be done. Moreover, the judiciary has disposed of the same.

e) Proper enquiry was conducted into the complaint made against the I. O. and nothing found wrong.

f) The scientific methods are adopted by the Delhi Police as per the requirement and circumstances of the case. But in this case no such circumstances found to adopt the same.

g) The certified copy of judgment may be had from the concerned court.

h) Your request of providing of certified copies of entire records including noting during enquiry, has been considered in this office, but could not be acceded to as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (e) & (g) of the “Right to Information Act, 2005”.

i) The same by had from the concerned office of UNHRC etc.”

Not satisfied with this response Mrs. Shama Praveen moved her first appeal before Jt. Commissioner (Police) Southern Range, Delhi Police (Hq.). The principal thrust of which was as follows:

“a) Enquiry/ investigation report has been sought regarding complaint and clinching material filed before your good self vide our complaint dated 25.7.2006. We are keen to know outcome of this enquiry/investigation undertaken on the input furnished by us. However the PIO did not provide the same without giving any justification or grounds as to how disclosure of information is exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) and (g).

b) Information provided in response to this point is not corresponding to the information sought. Hence I appeal to kindly provide correct information whether FIR No. 712/2000 was registered under 156 (3) Cr. P.C. If yes, provide proof of the same. If no what action has been taken for providing us incorrect information under RTIA vide Appeal No. (6) RTIA/06 (WD)/3779/SO/SR, dated 28.6.2006.”

The appeal was heard by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Appellate Authority and decision given on 23-1-07, in which he has held as follows:
On careful consideration, I find that point wise / parawise reply has been sent to her by the PIO/WD in response to her application dated 13.11.06 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It appears
that the appellant is dissatisfied with the action taken by the police into the matter. Here it is important to mention that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a citizen has the right to know the status of an issue. The appellant cannot claim that the issue should be decided or should have been decided in a particular manner. If the appellant is not satisfied with person aggrieved by police action can move accordingly. As such there has been no denial of the Right of the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

However, PIO/WD is directed to give to the appellant a copy of the enquiry report prepared on the complaint dated 25.7.06 filed by his brother Sh. Zafaryab Ahmed, after suitably deleting from it any
names or specific details etc which will expose any person to avoidable risk (reference Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005).”

On no action being taken on this Order Mrs. Shama Praveen moved her second appeal before us with the following prayer:  
“(i) Direct the PIO and AA, to provide the entire information as requested vide RTI Application
(ii) Direct the respondents to provide all information free of cost considering my BPL status.
(iii) Grant Rupees One- Lakh (Rs. 1,00,000) compensation for deliberately refusing
information/documents because of non-supply of which is leading of face avoidable trials in different court in Delhi, made to rush Delhi and appellant family has been compelled to file SLP, in Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus causing serious emotional harm, social, financialand mental harassment & torture to entire family.
(iv) Impose penalties for adopting dilatory tactics, exhibiting irresponsible attitude and deliberately failing to act as per mandate of the RTI Act and thus ‘frustrated’ the objective of the RTI Act, 2005.
(v) Direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi/appropriate authority to do the needful to ensure that no further harassment is caused to the appellant family for seeking this Hon’ble Commission’s intervention in the matter.
(vi) Grant Cost of this appeal as prescribed under sub section 8 (b) of Section 19 of the RTI Act. RTIA 2005 as RTIA 2005 was enacted for bringing transparency and accountability in public life. Denial of information on whimsical grounds has defeated the objective of RTIA, 2005.”

The appeal was heard on 24-9-2007 through video-conferencing. The following are present at the NIC Studio, New Delhi.
Respondents:
Shri Jagdev Singh, APIO
Shri Rajinder Singh, O/o DIG/W
Shri Parmaditya, ACP/ TN

Although, informed of the date and place of hearing because the appellant was absent we assumed that she had opted not to be present at the NIC Studio, Bijnore.

Respondents explained that they have, in fact, treated appellant as BPL (Below Poverty Line) and it is by error that she had been asked to deposit Rs. 2/. The information directed by the appellate authority to be sent to her is ready but appellant has not appeared to collect it.

                                                        INTERIM DECISION:
The CPIO is directed to dispatch the information stated to have been prepared on the basis of order of 1st Appellate Authority to appellant Mrs. Shama Praveen within one week of date of this decision notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, Central Information Commission.

We also find that information regarding points (a) (d) (g) (h) (i) has not been given. The CPIO Shri Robin Hibu DC (West) will, therefore, provide such information as is held by him or transfer the request to the appropriate authority u/s 6 (3) (i) and (ii) within 5 days of date of issue of this notice. This should have been done at the time of the receipt of the application.

As will be noted PIO has pleaded Section 8 (1) (e) and (g). Whereas recourse to Sec 8 (1) (g) has been upheld by Appellate Authority since this is a case of criminal proceedings from both sides, the issue of fiduciary relationship u/s 8 (1) (e) does not arise in a matter concerning registration of police cases.

The above decision was announced in the hearing. However, subsequent to the decision being announced we have received a telephone call from Bijnour from the father of complainant that although she had received the notice of hearing, the contact officer Mr. R.K. Goyal misled her. As per their fax message received at 5.17 pm on 24.9.’07 appellant Ms Shama Parveen has stated that they phoned Mr. Goyal at 12.30 p.m. who told the appellant to come to the Centre where he will meet them, but when the appellant reached the premises with her father at 1.10 p.m. Mr. Goyal had left for Vikas Bhavan, Bijnore. Due to which they could not appear for hearing.

We also find that during the hearing no officer of the NIC was in fact present. The attendant present at the Centre stated that they had been called away for a meeting. This leads to the arising of a doubt that, taken in the context of the appeal alleging dowry harassment, of the possibility of malafide intention in preventing the appellant Ms. Shama Praveen from appearing before us. Whereas CPIO will comply with the directions given the hearing as noted I the Interim Decision above, for the reasons described a Post Decisional Hearing  will now be held on 26th October 2007 at 1.30 p.m. through videoconference. All parties are directed to be present either at NIC HQ Delhi or NIC Centre Bijnore. Appellant will provide her contact numbers to the Registry so that she can be spoken to in case of any difficulty in appearing at the next hearing.

Notice of this Decision be given free of charge to all parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
24-9-2007

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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
24-9-2007

Decision on Call Records - Asha Vs DCP - No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00967

                                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00967 dated 24-9-2007
                                       Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19

Appellant: Smt. Asha Devi
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) Police Control Room (PCR)

FACTSBy an application of 29-1-07 Shri Ram Lal of Mangolpuri, New Delhi applied to the PIO, Police Station, Model Town seeking the following information:


"Please give me the detail of message given at No. 100 at PCR on 19.1.2007 and 20.1.2007."


PIO, Police Control Room, Delhi forwarded the same to Smt. Asha and Shri Bir Singh as third party asking for their No Objection to dispose of this application. However, in a subsequent letter of 23-2-07 Shri Ajay Kumar, PIO informed Shri Ram Lal that the request for information "could not be acceded to under Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act 2005".


Subsequently Ms. Asha Devi wife of Shri Bir Singh moved a similar application before the PIO, PCR, Model Town with the following request: "Please give me the detail of calls made at No. 100 at PCR by my husband on 19.1.2007 and 20.1.2007."


To this she received a response also from PIO Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP, PCR, Delhi informing her as follows:
"Your request to provide the certified copy of PCR call form lodged by you on 19.01.07 has been considered and could not be acceded to under section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act-2005."


Ms. Asha Devi then moved her first appeal before the Jt. Commissioner of Police on the following grounds:
"The calls are made by me and it is my right that what I informed the police on PCR call No. 100. There is nothing secret or any such thing which relates to you or any investigation or any third party related matter."


Upon this Dr. Aditya Arya, JCP (Operations) Delhi responded as follows:
"The information sought by you cannot be provided, as it will impede the prosecution of offender in case FIR No. 50/07 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act-2005."


In her prayer before us Ms. Asha Devi has submitted as follows:
"You are requested to consider my appeal and direct the officers concern to provide the required information and act upon official responsible for it as per law. I am ready to appear in person along with any lawyer to counter the vague arguments of police."


In response to the appeal notice DCP cum PIO, PCR Delhi has submitted as follows:
"The brother of the appellant is among top 10 criminals of North West District and was recently arrested by the police of PS- Adarsh Nagar vide FIR No. 50/07 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act. It is their tactics to call PCR falsely mentioning the name of some police stations so that the police refrain from having surveillance on his activities and to use such calls to take benefit during the trial of case. The applicant may use the PCR call forms/ DD entries to take undue benefit during the prosecution of the accused. Hence, the contention of the applicant for seeking the said DD entries is strongly opposed as per exemption from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act-2005."


Similarly, he submitted, "as per the report of SHO/ Mangol Puri, Ram Lal is the father of Mukesh @ Gujjar, a desperate criminal of the jurisdiction of P. S. Mangol Puri, Delhi. He has been involved in 17 cases of heinous crime relating to murder, attempt to murder, Extortion, abduction and other cases of serious nature. Mukesh @ Gujjar has recently been arrested by the police of PS Adarsh Nagar vide FIR No. 50/07 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act."


The appeal was heard on 5-12-08. We have received requests from Dr. Aditya Arya, JCP and Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP (Security) and PIO PCR dated 4- 12-'08 and 2-12-'08 seeking exemption from appearance. The following are present.
Respondents:
Shri Satish Yadav, SHO, Mangolpuri PS
Shri Narendra Pal Singh, ACP, Sultan Puri
Ms. Shanti, ACP cum APIO/PCR
Shri Satya Parkash, ASI/ PCR.


Although not present in the hearing, the following appellants appeared after the hearing pleading that they had lost their way resulting in delay.
Appellants
Smt. Asha Devi
Shri Bir Singh


In light of the ruling of Ravindra Bhat J. in the High Court of Delhi, Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Ors. W.P. No. 3114/2007 respondents were asked to establish how the disclosure of information sought by appellant Smt. Asha Devi would impede the process of prosecution. Respondent submitted that these were fake calls made to divert the Police from their investigation and if disclosed, will be used in defence on false grounds by appellant and their criminal relations. It was, however, not denied that such calls were received.

                                                       DECISION NOTICEIt 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.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.


(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
5-12-2008


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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
5-12-2008