IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 6637/2007
MRS. SADHNA .....
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION and ORS .....
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
O R D E R
30.01.2009
The petitioner seeks directions for quashing of an order dated 28.12.2006
and for initiating action against Respondent no.2 ? Delhi Police. The petitioner
alleges that sometime in 2001, representations were made by her to the Dy.
Commissioner of Police (SW), complaining of assault and other unlawful
activities by her neighbors. Apparently, in 2002-03, the same alleged offenders
had indulged in more serious acts which led to filing of FIRs; the petitioner
refers to their particulars. It is contended that in the circumstances, since
the police authorities did not take any action on the previous complaint,
information was elicited in terms of the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, 2005.
The Central Public Information Officer by order dated 22.08.2006
intimated inter alia that no records were available pertaining to the year 2001
as the records of the Vasant Kunj Police Station were destroyed by an order
dated 17.09.2004 The petitioner appealed to the Jt. Commissioner of Police, who
disposed of the appeal on 05.10.2006. She further appealed to the Central
Information Commission (CIC). The Commission, after discussing the merits
concluded that the petitioner appellant was in possession of application filed
with police authorities and required her to submit them to DCP for fresh
appraisal and necessary action. The Commission also directed the respondents to
furnish a copy of the Destruction Certificate.
The Destruction Certificate which is the bone of contention in the
present proceedings reads as follows:
?DESTRUCTION CERTIFICATE
It is certified that the old record of PS Vasant Kunj as ordered/mentioned
vide order No.4646-60/HAR/SWD dated 24/11/06 have been destroyed by burning in
my presence as per PPR 11.31 on 23/02/07.
Police Station : Vasant Kunj (RAVINDER GREWAL)
Dated : 23rd February 2007 Assistant Commissioner of Police
Sub-Division Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi.?
The petitioner contends that the statement in the Destruction Certificate
is at variance with the information furnished by the Central Public Information
Officer. According to the counsel, the respondents had clearly perjured
themselves before the CIC when they submitted that records were destroyed in
2004 whereas certain documents furnished indicate that records had been
destroyed in 2006. It was contended that in any event, the respondents are under
a duty to maintain the records at least for a period of 10 years. The counsel
pointed to an overriding provision enacted under Section 22 of the Act.
Learned counsel pointed out during the hearing that the respondents?
stand now appears that while furnishing Destruction Certificate, the Delhi
Police had committed a mistake and that in fact, records were destroyed in 2004
The Court has considered the submission of the parties. The question to be
considered is whether CIC acted properly in this case in not proceeding further
and processing the case for action under Section 20 towards imposing penalty.
The said provision reads as follows:
?20. Penalties.-(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any
complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has,
without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information
or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1)
of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which
was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day
till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total
amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity
of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provide further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and
diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal
is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable
cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has
not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which
was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, under the service rules applicable to him.?
As is evident, the Commission has to, while deciding the appeal or complaint
form an opinion that either or all the authorities without reasonable cause
refused to receive application for information or did not furnish the
information within the time specified ? or malafide or denied the request for
information or knowingly gave incorrect information. All this, in the considered
view of this Court, points to a culpable state of mind. The facts present before
this Court show that though there might be some variation or inconsistency as to
when records were destroyed, that does not show any lack of bonafides on part of
the CPIO or the appellate authority. For these reasons, the Court is of the
opinion that no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is called
for.
The petition is dismissed in the above terms.
C.M. Appl. 12525/2007 (Exemption)
Dismissed as infructuous.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
JANUARY 30, 2009
Print Page
W.P.(C) 6637/2007
MRS. SADHNA .....
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION and ORS .....
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
O R D E R
30.01.2009
The petitioner seeks directions for quashing of an order dated 28.12.2006
and for initiating action against Respondent no.2 ? Delhi Police. The petitioner
alleges that sometime in 2001, representations were made by her to the Dy.
Commissioner of Police (SW), complaining of assault and other unlawful
activities by her neighbors. Apparently, in 2002-03, the same alleged offenders
had indulged in more serious acts which led to filing of FIRs; the petitioner
refers to their particulars. It is contended that in the circumstances, since
the police authorities did not take any action on the previous complaint,
information was elicited in terms of the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, 2005.
The Central Public Information Officer by order dated 22.08.2006
intimated inter alia that no records were available pertaining to the year 2001
as the records of the Vasant Kunj Police Station were destroyed by an order
dated 17.09.2004 The petitioner appealed to the Jt. Commissioner of Police, who
disposed of the appeal on 05.10.2006. She further appealed to the Central
Information Commission (CIC). The Commission, after discussing the merits
concluded that the petitioner appellant was in possession of application filed
with police authorities and required her to submit them to DCP for fresh
appraisal and necessary action. The Commission also directed the respondents to
furnish a copy of the Destruction Certificate.
The Destruction Certificate which is the bone of contention in the
present proceedings reads as follows:
?DESTRUCTION CERTIFICATE
It is certified that the old record of PS Vasant Kunj as ordered/mentioned
vide order No.4646-60/HAR/SWD dated 24/11/06 have been destroyed by burning in
my presence as per PPR 11.31 on 23/02/07.
Police Station : Vasant Kunj (RAVINDER GREWAL)
Dated : 23rd February 2007 Assistant Commissioner of Police
Sub-Division Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi.?
The petitioner contends that the statement in the Destruction Certificate
is at variance with the information furnished by the Central Public Information
Officer. According to the counsel, the respondents had clearly perjured
themselves before the CIC when they submitted that records were destroyed in
2004 whereas certain documents furnished indicate that records had been
destroyed in 2006. It was contended that in any event, the respondents are under
a duty to maintain the records at least for a period of 10 years. The counsel
pointed to an overriding provision enacted under Section 22 of the Act.
Learned counsel pointed out during the hearing that the respondents?
stand now appears that while furnishing Destruction Certificate, the Delhi
Police had committed a mistake and that in fact, records were destroyed in 2004
The Court has considered the submission of the parties. The question to be
considered is whether CIC acted properly in this case in not proceeding further
and processing the case for action under Section 20 towards imposing penalty.
The said provision reads as follows:
?20. Penalties.-(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any
complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has,
without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information
or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1)
of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which
was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day
till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total
amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity
of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provide further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and
diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal
is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable
cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has
not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which
was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, under the service rules applicable to him.?
As is evident, the Commission has to, while deciding the appeal or complaint
form an opinion that either or all the authorities without reasonable cause
refused to receive application for information or did not furnish the
information within the time specified ? or malafide or denied the request for
information or knowingly gave incorrect information. All this, in the considered
view of this Court, points to a culpable state of mind. The facts present before
this Court show that though there might be some variation or inconsistency as to
when records were destroyed, that does not show any lack of bonafides on part of
the CPIO or the appellate authority. For these reasons, the Court is of the
opinion that no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is called
for.
The petition is dismissed in the above terms.
C.M. Appl. 12525/2007 (Exemption)
Dismissed as infructuous.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
JANUARY 30, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment