केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067 द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/142686
Shri Sarbjit Singh Gulati … अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO
Delhi Police …प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 17.08.2021 Date of Decision : 17.08.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.08.2018 PIO replied on : 20.09.2018 First Appeal filed on : 06.06.2019 First Appellate Order on : 28.06.2019 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 02.09.2019
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated29.08.2018 seeking status and date wise proceeding of his complaint dated 28.05.2015 to Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police.
The PIO/Central District, Delhi Police vide letter dated 20.09.2018 provided a copy of the enquiry report on his complaint.
Being dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.06.2019. The FAA vide order dated 28.06.2019 stated that the appellant can file first appeal against the reply provided by the PIO within 30 days from the date of receipt the reply under the provision of RTI act-2005. Since it has been time barred, the first appeal does not require any intervention. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
1
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that no satisfactory action was taken on his complaint till date and a copy of the legal opinion taken in the matter was also not provided.
The Respondent represented by Shri Manish Jorwal, ACP participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that a copy of the inquiry report was already provided to the Appellant by the PIO. With regard to the legal opinion sought by the Appellant during the hearing he stated that the same was a confidential document pertaining to their litigation strategy of the public authority hence the same was not disclosed to the Appellant.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that adequate information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent as the copy of the inquiry report has already been shared with the Appellant. Although no specific mention of the legal opinion has been made by the Appellant in his RTI application, the same being subject to attorney- client privilege is also exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा)
Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त)
Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535
2
Comments