Y.K. Sinha, Chief Information Commissioner
1. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/643177
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2021 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
Image
2. The PIO vide online letter dated 16.08.2021 replied as under:-
I have gone through the relevant record as well as comments of the PIO/East Distt. and found that the PIO/East Distt. has provided the information to you against your RTI application vide his office memo No. ID-1470/2021/2109/Info. Cell/East Distt. dated 14.08.2021 well in time as per RTI Act-2005 accordingly. In these circumstances, there is no way to interfere in to the reply/information supplied to you by the PIO/East Distt. Hence, your appeal application is hereby considered and rejected.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 15.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/643183
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Image
6. The PIO vide online letter dated 16.08.2021 replied as under:-
1, 2, 3, 4. The asked information may be treated as nil from East District during the asked period.
5. Not applicable.
6. RTI Cell/Appeal Section/East District.
7. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 15.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
8. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/643194
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-
Image
10. The PIO vide online letter dated 16.08.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 5. The asked information may be treated as Nil from East District.
11. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 15.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
12. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
4. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644253
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2021 seeking information on the following 07 points:-
Image
14. The PIO vide online letter dated 17.08.2021 replied as under:-
This is with reference to your RTI application dated 18.07.2021 which was received in RTI Cell/East District on dated 18.07.2021 through online DEPOL/R/E/21/05343 under RTI Act-2005. The asked information on your RTI application is as under:-
No further details about official mobile-number of DCP-East as sought in RTI application can be provided due to security reasons and as such exempted under section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act.
Reference is further invited to Supreme Court verdict dated 13.11.2019 (Civil Appeal number 2683, 10044 & 10045 of 2010) in the matter "Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court versus Subhash Chandra Agrawal" where the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
44. In line with the aforesaid discussion, we need to note that following non-exhaustive considerations needs to be considered while assessing the 'public interest' under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
a. Nature and content of the information
b. Consequences of non-disclosure; dangers and benefits to public
c. Type of confidential obligation.
d. Beliefs of the confidant; reasonable suspicion
e. Party to whom information is disclosed
f. Manner in which information acquired
g. Public and private interests
h. Freedom of expression and proportionality.
You are once again cautioned against your tendency of filing RTI applications in an indiscriminate manner as per court-orders cited in earlier RTI responses and orders of First Appellate Authority.
15. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
16. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644256
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2021 seeking information on the following 07 points:-
Image
18. The PIO vide online letter dated 17.08.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 5. In this regard, a reply on your similar RTI application has already been provided to you vide this office ID No. 1866/2020/3227/Info. Cell/East District on dated 07.12.2020 (in the reference of DEPOL/R/E/20/07790) and in this regard your Ist Appeal have already been disposed of with the direction to provide the fresh reply vide this office Appeal ID No. 255/2020/57-58/A-RTI on Dt. 07.01.2021 and its compliance has already been done vide no 255/2020/111 on dt. 15.01.21.
6. N/A
19. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
20. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
6. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644259
21. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Image
22. The PIO vide online letter dated 17.08.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 5. In this regard, a reply on your similar RTI application has already been provided to you vide this office ID No. 1819/2020/3215/Info. Cell/East District on dated 07.12.2020 (in the reference of DEPOL/R/E/20/07676) and in this regard your Ist Appeal have already been disposed of with the direction to provide the fresh reply vide this office Appeal ID No. 248/2020/47-48/A-RTI on dated 07.01.2021 and compliance vide no 248/2020/113 on dated 15.01.21.
6. N/A
23. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
24. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
7. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644261
25. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Image
26. The PIO vide online letter dated 17.08.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 5. In this regard, a reply on your similar RTI application has already been provided to you vide this office ID No. 1819/2020/3215/Info. Cell/East District on dated 07.12.2020 (in the reference of DEPOL/R/E/20/07676) and in this regard your Ist Appeal have already been disposed of with the direction to provide the fresh reply vide this office Appeal ID No. 248/2020/47-48/A-RTI on dated 07.01.2021 and compliance vide no 248/2020/113 on dated 15.01.21.
6. N/A
27. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.08.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
28. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
8. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/644262
29. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Image
30. The PIO vide online letter dated 17.08.2021 replied as under:-
1 to 5. In this regard, a reply on your similar RTI application has already been provided to you vide this office ID No. 1760/2020/3061/Info. Cell/East District on dated 26.11.2020 (in the reference of DEPOL/R/E/20/07376) and in this regard your Ist Appeal have already been disposed of with the direction to provide the fresh reply vide this office Appeal ID No. 228/2020/3597-98/A-RTI on Dt. 31.12.2020 and compliance vide no 228/2020/100 on dt. 13.01.21.
6. N/A
31. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.08.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 15.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
32. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
9. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/638989
33. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.06.2021 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
Image
34. The PIO vide online response dated 15.07.2021 replied as under:-
1. An inward number of the asked e-mail file vide No. 2157, dated 13/06/2021 HAC/East District.
2. The requisite information may be treated as Nil from East District.
3. Not applicable in view of point No. 2
4. HAC Branch/East District.
35. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, East District vide order dated 17.08.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
36. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
10. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603266
37. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2020 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
Image
38. The PIO vide online response dated 19.11.2020 replied as under:-
"Information supplied to the applicant vide this Hdqrs. letter No. XXIV/29/Spl/ID-3786/2020/41397/RTI Cell/PHQ, dated 18.11.2020."
39. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2020. The FAA/Jt. Commissioner of Police, Hdqrs, vide order dated 15.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
40. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
11. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603270
41. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.10.2020 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
Image
42. The PIO vide online response dated 19.10.2020 replied as under:-
Image
43. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2020. The FAA/Jt. Commissioner of Police, Hdqrs, vide order dated 15.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
44. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
12. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603271
45. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.11.2020 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Image
46. The PIO vide online response dated 11.12.2020 replied as under:-
Image
47. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2020. The FAA/Jt. Commissioner of Police, Hdqrs, vide order dated 15.01.2021 stated as under:-
Image
48. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
13. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603274
49. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.11.2020 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
Image
50. The PIO vide online response dated 19.11.2020 replied as under:-
"Your RTI application transfer to PIO East vide this office order no. 1239/20/2612-13/RTI/Vigilance dated 18.11.2020, as the complaint in question has already been sent to the Joint CP/Eastern Range directly.
51. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2020. The FAA/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, vide order dated 23.12.2020 stated as under:-
Image
52. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
14. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603273
53. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.10.2020 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
Image
54. The PIO/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Police Hqrs vide dated 09.11.2020 replied as under:-
Image
55. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2020. The FAA/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, vide order dated 15.01.2021 stated as under:-
Image
56. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
15. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/603269
57. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2020 seeking information on the following 05 points:-
58. The PIO/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Police HDQRS vide dated 09.11.2020 replied as under:-
Image
59. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2020. The FAA/Addl. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, vide order dated 15.01.2021 stated as under:-
Image
60. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
61. Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing, while the Appellant has sent an email dated 27.02.2023 stating that he would not be able to attend the hearing on account of traffic disruption due to ongoing political protest. He specified vide a tabular format that he wished to withdraw the abovementioned fifteen appeals filed by him.
Decision:
62. In the light of the Appellant's request, the appeals specified by him are dismissed as withdrawn.
