STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054

Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Iqbal Singh Rasulpur,Village – Rasulpur(Malla),Tehsil – Jagraon,Distt. – Ludhiana – 142035 .…Appellant

Vs

Public Information Officer,O/o Sr. Supdt. of Police(Rural),Ludhiana

First Appellate AuthorityO/o Inspector General of Police Pb.(Zonal), Jalandhar …Respondent

Appeal Case No. 2313 of 2013

i) Since this Appeal case has dragged on for very long, it will be prudent on our part to

recapitulate main facts of this case. 

ii) Sh. Iqbal Singh Rasulpur applied to Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana, camp at Jagraon, for inspection of police files relating to FIR number 240 of 2004 and FIR number 242 of 2005, registered in Police Station, City, Jagraon and also for releasing documents after inspection as required by him, by moving a request under the Right To Information Act-2005 (hereafter Act only). The request for inspection of files was made on 31.05.2013 through a letter no. 588, sent to Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana, through registered post on 03.06.2013.

iii) After having failed to get desired response from the respondent PIO concerned, Sh. Rasulpur filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar through a letter no. 811/RTI, dated 12.08.2013. This letter was sent to Appellate Authority-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar through registered post on 16.08.2013.

iv) In the first appeal, Sh. Rasulpur stated that he had moved RTI request to Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana for carrying out the inspection of police files relating to FIR No. 240 of 2004 and 242 of 2005. He informed that Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana through a letter no. 455 dated 04.06.2013, responded to his RTI request and asked him which part of these two files, he wanted to inspect.

v) The contents of letter number 455, dated 04.06.2013, which has been placed on record shows that one Sh. Harpal Singh, Police Information Cell,  wrote a letter on behalf of office of SSP (Rural), Ludhiana, to Sh. Rasulpur. In this letter, it was mentioned that request of Sh. Rasulpur was received in the office of SSP (Rural), Ludhiana, on 08.06.2013. A report on the same RTI request was sought from Station House officer (SHO)-cum-PIO, City, Jagraon.  The photocopy of that report is being sent to Sh. Rasulpur alongwith this letter.

vi) In that letter of Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon, it was written that applicant be asked about the fact that as to which part of the two files, he wanted to inspect as both the cases are pending trial in the court.

vii) He urged that on this he clarified through a letter dated 08.07.2013 that he wanted to inspect complete files. He urged in his first appeal that the question regarding the fact that as to which part of the files he wanted to inspect, which was posed to him by the SSP (Rural), Ludhiana, was not valid  and unnecessary.

viii) He stated that a letter number 500, dated 30.07.2013 was received by him from the office of SSP (Rural), Ludhiana, which was signed by some official on behalf of SSP.  In that letter, it was mentioned that on the letter written by him on 08.07.2013 to SSP (Rural), Ludhiana, a report was sought from SHO-cum-PIO, Police Station, City, Jagraon  and same report (which has been given by SHO, Police station, City, Jagraon through his letter dated  22.07.2013) was sent to him alongwith that letter.

ix) He mentioned that in that letter, the SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon has claimed that inspection of complete files pertaining to case number 240/2004 and case number 242/2005 of police station, Jagraon, can’t be allowed as section 173 (3) of Cr. P. C prevents the accused or his agent to have inspection of files and section 8 of the RTI Act also bars inspection of police files.

x) He stated that on the basis of the letter of SHO, police station, Jagraon, he was denied inspection of the relevant files, which is violation of the RTI Act-2005.

xi) He made a request to First Appellate Authority to direct PIO of SSP (Rural), Ludhiana for allowing inspection of files. He also made it clear that the information sought for by him is connected with his life and liberty.

xii) Having again failed to get the desired response, he approached the State Information Commission, Punjab (hereinafter Commission only) through second appeal.  In the second appeal, which he moved to the Commission through its Secretary on 12.10.2013, he urged

the Commission to take action according to law as he was not given documents after inspection of files relating to case FIR number 240/04 and FIR number 242/05. A copy of second appeal was also sent to SSP (Rural), Ludhiana.

xiii) The first appeal of Sh. Rasulpur was decided by Inspector General of Police, Zone 2-cum Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, on 01.10.2013. The order of First Appellate Authority, which was sent to  Sh. Rasulpur, appellant and SSP, Rural (Ludhiana), through letter number 12981 dated 01.10.2013, is placed on record.

xiv) In that order, the first Appellate Authority (FAA)-cum-IG, Police, Zone 2, Jalandhar, has mentioned that appeal of Sh. Rasulpur was received in his office on 17.08.2013. In connection of this appeal, a letter number 10976/RTI, dated 19.08.2013, was written to SSP (Rural), Ludhiana, mentioning that information sought for by Sh. Rasulpur be given to him after allowing him inspection as per provisions of the RTI Act-2005 and if the information is not to be given then a report in that connection be sent to office of IG, Police, Zone 2, Jalandhar within five days.

xv) A copy of this letter was also sent to Sh. Rasulpur.

xvi) The FAA-cum-IG, Police, Zone 2, Jalandhar, has mentioned in his order that in a reply, filed before him, through letter no. 620/RTI dated 25.09.2013, the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana, has mentioned that he (SSP) has  sought for a report in connection with the first appeal  from Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon. He mentioned that he has been informed by Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon, that a case bearing AC 521/2013, connected with the same subject is pending before the Commission. He also mentioned that he has been told by the Station House Officer, Police Station, City Jagraon, in his report that inspection of the files concerned could not be allowed to the appellant under Section 8 of the RTI Act and under Section 173(3) of Cr. P. C as it prevents the accused or his agents from having inspection of complete files. He also mentioned that whatever will be decision of the Hon’ble Commission in AC 521/2013, would be followed in the instant appeal case.

xvii) The SSP(Rural), Ludhiana also mentioned in his reply that challan pertaining to the cases no. 240 of 2004 and 242 of 2005 have been presented in the relevant court  on 14.10.2005 and 11.10.2005 respectively and both cases are pending trial in the relevant court. He mentioned that files pertaining to these cases could be allowed for inspection only if applicant takes the permission of that effect from the Hon’ble Court.

xviii) While disposing first appeal of Sh. Rasulpur, the FAA-cum- IG, Police, Zone – 2, Jalandhar, made the following order that after considering the report of SSP (Rural), Ludhiana, it has been found that AC 521/2013 is pending before the Hon’ble Commission and case pertaining to FIR   number 240 of 2004 and FIR number 242 of 2005 of Police Station, City, Jagraon, are pending trial in the court as challan in both the cases have been presented in the court and hence, so the inspection of files could not be allowed under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The appellant was also informed that if he wanted to inspect the files concerned, he could inspect the concerned files only after he gets permission to inspect the same from the Hon’ble Court.

xix) With these observations/directions, the first appeal of Sh. Rasulpur was filed. A copy of decision was sent to SSP, Rural (Ludhiana) and Sh. Rasulpur.

xx) The SSP, Rural (Ludhiana) or one of the official of his office on his behalf, made a reply before the FAA-cum-IG, Police, Zonal-2, Jalandhar, against the first appeal of Sh. Rasulpur through letter number 620/RTI dated 25.09.2013.

xxi) In that reply, the SSP (rural), Ludhiana, or one of the official of his office on his behalf has mentioned that this letter is in reference to letter number 10976/RTI, dated 19.08.2013.

xxii) In that letter, it was mentioned that through a Form-A number 588, dated 31.05.2013, which was received in the office of SSP(Rural), Ludhiana, on 08.06.2013, the applicant, Sh. Iqbal Singh Rasulpur, has sought for inspection of police files pertaining to FIR number 240/04 and FIR number 242/05 of Police Station, City, Jagraon. A report in connection with the application of Sh. Rasulpur, was sought from SHO, police station, city, Jagraon and the SHO concerned has mentioned in his report that  applicant should be asked that as to which part of the files, he wanted to inspect. The applicant was informed about this fact accordingly as per report of SHO, police station, city, Jagraon through letter  number 455/RTI, dated 04.06.2013. Again the applicant wrote to SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, that he wanted to inspect complete files. Again a report from SHO, police station, City, Jagraon, was sought on the fact that as to whether the complete files be allowed for inspection to Sh. Rasulpur and SHO concerned wrote that both the cases (FIR 240/04 and FIR 242/05) are pending trial in the court.  The applicant has earlier sought Zimni of these two cases and the case AC 521/13 in connection with same is pending in the Commission. The files pertaining to the two cases can’t be allowed for inspection to Sh. Rasulpur under section 8 of the RTI Act. The Section 173 (3) of Cr. P. C also prevents inspection of police files to accused or his agent.  The applicant was informed about this fact through letter number 500 RTI, dated 30.07.2013.

xxiii) Now the applicant has made an appeal before the FAA-cum-IG, Police, Zonal-2, Jalandhar. A report in this connection has also been sought from the SHO, police station, City, Jagraon. The SHO has written in his report that a case in connection with this subject is pending in the Commission under case AC 521/13. The inspection of files can’t be allowed as per provision of Section 8 of the RTI Act. The Section 173 (3) of Cr. P. C also prevents the inspection of complete files to an accused or his agent. In the instant case, the decision, which will be taken by the Commission in AC 521/13, will be followed. The challan pertaining to FIR 240/04 and FIR 242/05 have been presented in the court on 14.10.2005 and 11.10.2005 respectively. Both the two cases are under trial in the Court. The applicant can inspect the files with the permission of court concerned. The report of SHO concerned was attached with this reply and it was requested that appeal of applicant be filed.

xxiv) From the contents of the letter no. 610/RTI dated 25.09.2013, it has emerged that decision of denial of inspection of files was conveyed to the appellant through letter no. 500/RTI dated 30.07.2013. It has also become clear that in the first appeal, it was SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, who made the reply and not the SHO, police Station, City, Jagraon.  

xxv) Moreover, SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, in that reply has nowhere claimed that he was not PIO in this case and SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon, is PIO in this case. The SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, even did not direct the SHO, police Station, City, Jagraon, to attend the proceedings of first appeal in the capacity of PIO.

xxvi) In a letter no. 49/RTI dated 08.04.2015,  which has also been placed on record, the then Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana, has submitted that RTI request of Sh. Rasulpur was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana on 08.06.2013 through Form – A number. 588 dated 31.05.2013.

xxvii) He submitted that appellant has made a request in connection with the inspection of files pertaining cases pertaining to FIR number 240 of 2004 and FIR number 242 of 2005.

xxviii) He submitted that RTI request of Sh. Rasulpur was transferred to PIO of office of PIO-cum-SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon, with the direction for taking necessary action on the same under intimation to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana. He submitted that on 28.06.2013, the SHO concerned through his report stated that both cases are pending trial in the Court and appellant be asked that as to which part of   files, pertaining to these two cases, he wanted to inspect. He submitted that appellant was

informed about this thing through letter no. 455/RTI dated 04.07.2013. He stated that on this applicant clarified through a letter dated 08.07.2013 that he wanted to inspect complete files.

xxix) On the letter written by him on 08.07.2013 to SSP (Rural), Ludhiana, a report was sought from SHO-Cum-PIO, Police station, City, Jagraon again and same report (which has been given by SHO, Police station, City, Jagraon, through his letter dated  22.07.2013) sent to Sh. Rasulpur through letter no. 500/RTI dated 30.07.2013 and a copy of the same was also handed over to the appellant ‘in person’ on 02.08.2013 and receipt of the same was also taken.

xxx) The report of Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon, which was placed on the file also, stated that inspection of files could not be allowed under Section 8 of the RTI Act and 172(3) of Cr. P.C. The applicant has also sought for ‘Zimni’ of same cases from the SHO, police station, city, Jagraon and an AC 521/13 in that connection is pending in the Commission.

xxxi) He submitted that then the appellant approached Inspector General of Police, Zone – 2, Jalandhar through his first appeal.

xxxii) The Appellate Authority-cum-Inspector General of Police, Zone – 2, Jalandhar, sent a notice to the SSP(Rural), Ludhiana-cum PIO while taking cognizance of the first appeal of Sh. Rasulpur through a letter number 10976, dated 19.08.2013. A copy of first appeal of Sh. Rasulpur was also attached with that notice.

xxxiii) The PIO-cum-SSP(Rural), Ludhiana, was directed by Appellate Authority-cum-IG, Police, Zonal-2, Jalandhar, to supply the information to applicant after allowing him inspection of record as per the provisions of RTI Act-2005  and if no information is to be given then  send a report accordingly to the office of Appellate Authority-cum-Inspector General of Police, Zone – 2, Jalandhar, within five days.

xxxiv) On this, a copy of appeal was sent to Station House Officer, Police Station – City Jagraon after taking report on the same.

xxxv) The report of the Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon pointed out that both the cases are pending under trial in Court. Another case connected with information, sought for by the appellant regarding ‘Zimni’ (in AC 521/13) is pending before the Commission.

xxxvi) In that report, Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon has mentioned that whatever decision will be given by the Hon’ble Commission in AC 521/13, would be followed in the instant Appeal case.

xxxvii) The Station House Officer, Police Station, City Jagraon, has mentioned that as these both cases are pending for trial in Court, hence the appellant can inspect the files with the permission of the Hon’ble Court only. The reply,  in connection with the first appeal of the appellant, was given to Appellate Authority-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar as per the report of the Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon. The First Appellate Authority-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar, agreeing with that reply, ordered that the appeal of Sh. Rasulpur is filed.

xxxviii) After the first appeal was disposed of by the First Appellate Authority, the appellant filed  another appeal in the State Information Commission, Punjab. It was listed for hearing before the Commission on 12.11.2013.

xxxix) As the information was connected with the PIO of City Police Station, Jagraon, so a reply under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act was sent  to Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner with the endorsement of the same to Sh. Iqbal Singh and to PIO-cum-Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon through letter number 800- 802/RTI, dated 07.11.2013, was made and in that letter, the PIO-cum-SHO was directed to be present before the Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner on 12.11.2013.

XL) On the hearing, held on 12.11.2013, Sh. Satpal Singh, ASI, Police Station, City Jagraon, informed that another appeal connected with the similar matter is pending before the Full Bench of the Commission as AC 521/13. On this, the instant appeal case was also referred to Full Bench and both appeal cases including AC 521/13 and instant one (AC 2313/2013) were put on hearing before the Full Bench.

XLI) The next date of hearing was fixed for 27.11.2013 and then 19.02.2014 and then 26.03.2014. The judgment was reserved by the said Bench in this case vide its orders dated 26.03.2014.

XLII) After that the instant case was opened up again for hearing  and it was listed for hearing on 12.02.2015 and case was deferred to 17.03.2015 as quorum was not complete on 12.02.2015.

XLIII) In the hearing, held on 17.03.2015, Inspector, Sh. Shiv Chand of Police Station, City, Jagraon and, Sh. Harpreet Singh, Head Constable attended the hearing.

XLIV) During the hearing, held on 17.03.2015, the appellant, Sh. Iqbal Singh Rasulpur, who attended hearing, alleged that no information was supplied to him by the respondent PIO concerned in this case till that day.  

XLV) He stated that he approached the State Information Commission through Second Appeal. He stated   that he has given judgments/decisions of  Hon’ble Supreme Court,  Hon’ble  High Court and Hon’ble  State Information Commission, office of the  Home Affairs, Punjab, and Director General  of Police, Punjab , to the respondent PIO concerned, to establish the fact that he is well entitled  to inspect  the files as per decisions of the above mentioned Institutions.

XLVI) He alleged that he was denied inspection of files by the Police Officers/ officials concerned including the respondent PIO concerned, because of the fact  that police has fabricated false record. He alleged that police has done it also as police made false witnesses to register false case against him and his family members.

XLVII) He alleged that he has managed to get information,  which has established  that  the Police has fabricated  documents, created false witnesses  and  created  false record to ensure conviction of him and his family members  in a false  murder case.  He stated that as he managed to procure some sort of information under the RTI Act from different sources and by using same he got justice from the Court and he and his family members were acquitted in the criminal cases.

XLVIII) He claimed PIO O/o SSP(Rural),  Jagraon have violated the orders of Department of Home Affairs, Punjab, orders of ADGP(Crime), AIGP, orders of the Commission and orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Courts.

XLIX) He stated that inspection of files have been denied  to him  to put a veil on  the misdeeds  of Sh. Gurinder Singh,  who was the then SHO of Police Station, City,  Jagraon, as Sh Gurinder Singh was involved in creation  of  false and fabricated record for implicating him and his family members in false criminal cases.  This was the reason for denial   of Zimni record to him sought for him through another request and inspection of files through the RTI request of instant case.

L) He claimed that he alongwith   his family members were also made  to face  police torture, harassment, traumatic experience/ period, economic  losses/ hardships  on account of denial of inspection of files.

LI)  The SHO concerned has also made to him to suffer illegal confinement on account of  his arrest after registration of false murder case against him and his family members. This was also established by the Court of Law, which acquitted them on 28.03.2014   by declaring that SHO has made false witnesses and concocted story against them.  He asserted that SHO has done injustice to him it as he (Sh. Rasulpur) belonged to scheduled caste category. 

LII) He asserted that inspection of files have been denied to him by the respondent PIO concerned so that respondent PIO could  manage to stop the incidents relating to torture/harassment/hardship and inhuman behavior, faced   by   him and his family members in police custody and otherwise also, from coming into the light.

LIII) Sh. Harpreet Singh, HC, who attended the hearing, stated that Sh. Ashish Choudhary was SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, when the RTI application was moved by the applicant and is now posted as SSP, Kapurthala.

LIV) A show cause was issued to Sh. Choudhary under Section 20 (1)  of the RTI Act asking him as to why penalty be   not   imposed upon him for willful delay/denial in supplying the information to the RTI applicant and why the compensation be not awarded to the information-seeker under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

LV) The SSP, Ludhiana (Rural), was also directed to file his/her reply in this case to explain as to why information to the appellant is not givable. He was told that his reply must be in the shape of affidavit and claims into the same must be accompanied by supporting documents as per official record.

LVI) Sh. Naveen Kumar, DSP, Sh. Jaspal Singh, ASI and Sh. Harpreet Singh, HC , who attended the hearing on 09.04.2015, handed over the requisite information to the complainant, Sh.  Rasulpur A copy of the same alongwith copy of supplied information was taken on record.

LVII) The appellant, Sh. Rasulpur stated that he had inspected the relevant file and received the information.

LVIII) Sh. Choudhary, SSP, Kapurthala, to  whom show cause was issued vide orders dated 17.03.2015,  requested for exemption from the personal appearance in that hearing vide

his letter No. 22552 dated 08.04.2015,which was received in the Commission through Diary No. 8847 dated 08.04.2015, sought for one month’s time to give reply to the show cause. It was taken on record.

LVIX) While granting request of Sh. Choudhary he was directed to submit his reply to the show cause.

LX) Sh. Ajay Raj Singh, DSP (Head quarter), Ludhiana (Rural), Sh. Surinder Singh, SI, Sham Singh, ASI and Sh. Harpreet Singh, HC, who attended hearing on 12.05.2015, submitted a reply dated 11.05.2015  signed by Sh. Choudhary, in the shape of an affidavit, to the show cause issued to him

LXI) Sh. Rasulpur, also submitted two written submissions, both dated 12.05.2015, which were also taken on record.

LXII) The judgment in this case was reserved vide order dated 12.05.2015.

LXIII) However, before the judgement in this case was pronounced, a letter was received from the appellant, Sh. Rasulpur, through Diary No. 21344 dated 19.08.2015, in the Commission.

LXIV) In that letter he pleaded that he be given an opportunity for bringing certain facts before the Bench before the pronouncement of the decision in this case.

LXV) After considering the request of Sh. Rasulpur, an opportunity was given to him in the interest of justice for bringing more facts before the Bench for deciding this case. As an opportunity was given to Sh. Rasulpur for bringing more facts connected with this case before the Bench, an opportunity was also given to the other parties concerned to make their representation in this case in view of the request of Sh. Rasulpur.

LXVI) On 15.09.2015, Sh. Rasulpur appeared in person.  Sh. Jasbir Singh, Sub Inspector, CPRC and Sh. Janenderdeep Singh, Constable, appeared on behalf of the respondent in hearing, stated that they had brought the official record so that the appellant could inspect the same and identify the required information. The appellant, Sh. Rasulpur, carried out inspection of the official record during the hearing and took Photostat copies of the identified information.

LXVII) After going through the supplied documents, he pointed out certain deficiencies through letter, dated 15.09.2015 and handed over a copy of the same to Sh. Jasbir Singh during the hearing. A copy of the same was also taken on record.

LXVIII) After hearing the parties concerned and examining the documents placed on record, We directed Sh. Ravcharan Singh Brar, who was the PIO-cum-SSP Police, District Jagraon, to remove the deficiencies  pointed out by the appellant.

LXIX) Sh. Sukhchain Singh, ASI and Sh. Harpreet Singh, HC, who appeared on behalf of the respondent in hearing, held on 03.11.2015, handed over a reply dated 03.11.2015 to appellant. A copy of the same was taken on record.

LXX) Sh. Rasulpur, who acknowledged that he has received full information, pleaded that penal action must be taken against the respondent PIO concerned as per provisions of the RTI Act for causing delay in supplying him the requisite information. He also pleaded that he be given suitable compensation for the detriments suffered by him.

LXXI) After hearing the parties concerned and examining the documents placed on record, the judgment was reserved vide orders dated 03.11.2015.

LXXII) To explain that as to why penalty be not imposed upon him as per show cause issued to him, Sh Choudhary submitted a reply to show cause issued to him in an affidavit.

LXXIII) In para number 2 of the affidavit, Sh Choudhary admitted that he was posted as SSP, Ludhiana Rural on 07.08.2012 and remained there till 29.05.2014 when he was transferred.

LXXIV) In the para number 4 of the affidavit, Sh Choudhary admitted that an application seeking permission to inspect police files related to case/FIR No. 240 dated 31.07.2004 and case/FIR No. 242 dated 22.07.2005, PS City Jagraon was received from the applicant in the office of deponent on 08.06.2013. And exercising powers under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, he forwarded the same application to PIO-cum-Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon vide letter no. 431/RTI dated 08.06.2013 with the directions to take necessary action.

LXXV) In response thereto, the SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon-cum-PIO sent the written information on 28.06.2013 mentioning therein that both the aforementioned case/FIRs are under trial, however, the clarification be sought from the appellant as to which part of the police files, he wants to inspect.

LXXVI) As a consequence thereafter, the written information was sent to the appellant vide letter memo number 455/RTI dated 04.07.2013 besides delivering one copy of the same to the appellant personally.

LXXVII) He also admitted in sub para number 5  of para 4 of the affidavit that the appellant, on 08.07.2013, filed a reply stating that he wants to inspect the complete case files. The same was forwarded to PIO-cum-Station House Officer, Police Station, City Jagraon and PIO-cum-Station House Officer, Police Station, City Jagraon responded that complete case file cannot be allowed for inspection as the same is barred under Section 8 of the RTI Act and Section 172 (3) of Cr. P. C. 

LXXVIII) In para number 5, Sh. Choudhary claimed that the appellant has filed a statutory appeal and the same was decided against him. Then the appellant approach Hon’ble Commission by filing an appeal bearing AC No. 2313 of 2013.

LXXIX) In para number 6 of the affidavit, Sh. Choudhary claimed that information sought for by the appellant was related to Police Station, City Jagraon and therefore, Station House Officer of Police Station, City Jagraon undoubtedly  was the PIO for all intents of purposes. He also claimed that even this Hon’ble Commission in A. C. No. 521 of 2013 vide order dated 17.03.2015 has observed that Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon was PIO and issued a show cause notice to him. He also claimed that the appellant knowingly well that the deponent (Sh. Choudhary) was  not the PIO wrongly arrayed him as the respondent PIO.

LXXX) In sub para 2 of para number 6 of the affidavit, he claimed that his role was limited to the extent that he received the application under the RTI Act and immediately forwarded the same on the same day to PIO-cum-Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon as the information sought for by the appellant was related to Police Station, City, Jagraon. This appeal was transferred under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act and the response submitted by the PIO was duly got noted to the appellant. He claimed that show cause issued to him be dropped in view of his submission as there is no denial/delay occurred on the part of deponent.

LXXXI) After hearing the parties concerned, examining the documents placed on record by applicant/appellant, respondent PIO and First Appellate Authority, we are of the thoughtful consideration that the first main question, which has emerged for determination in the case in hand, is related with the fact as to whether SSP, Rural Ludhiana was PIO in this case or   SHO , Police Station, City Jagraon is PIO in this case.

 

 

LXXXII) The following facts deserve consideration for determination for the above mention question as to whether SSP, Rural, Ludhiana was PIO in this case or not.

LXXXIII) In the letter, through which the RTI request of Sh. Rasulpur was transferred to SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon (PIO) not the PIO of office of SSP, Ludhiana, Rural, but one other official, who could not be identified from his signature, mentioned that application of the applicant is being sent to PIO-cum-Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon alongwith the direction that take necessary action on the same and inform the office of SSP, Ludhiana, Rural.

LXXXIV) In this letter, SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon, was neither directed to carry out correspondence with the information seeker in the capacity of PIO, nor information seeker was informed about the transfer of his request to SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon under section 6 (3) of the Act.

LXXXV) As per provisions of the Section 6 (3) of the Act, the first Public Authority after transferring the RTI request to another Public Authority must inform the applicant about that transfer immediately.

LXXXVI) In the letter number 455/RTI, dated 04.07.2013, which was sent to Sh. Rasulpur as first response to his request under RTI Act, was sent to him by Sh Harpal Singh, Police Information Cell, Ludhiana Rural. In this letter, it has been clearly mentioned that it is from office of SSP, Ludhiana (Rural). It has also been mentioned in it that information in connection with the request under RTI was procured from SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon-cum-PIO and a photocopy of same is sent to Sh. Rasulpur.

LXXXVII) This document, which is placed on record, shows that someone on behalf of Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana has sent RTI request of Sh. Rasulpur to PIO-cum-Station House Officer, Police Station – City Jagraon  with the directions to take necessary action regarding the RTI request of Sh. Rasulpur under intimation to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana. Hence, Sh Choudhary, who was PIO in this case, did not transfer RTI request of Sh. Rasulpur from himself to SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon.

LXXXVIII) From the contents of this letter, it has become clear that SHO, City, Police Station, Jagraon, was never allowed to carry out the correspondence with Sh. Rasulpur despite the fact that Sh Choudhary claimed that SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon, was made PIO in this case.

LXXXIX) Moreover, neither in the status report, through letter no. 49-RTI dated 08.04.2015 nor in the reply made by Sh. Choudhary , who was PIO-cum- Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana, at the time when RTI request was moved by Sh. Rasulpur, showed that Sh. Rasulpur was ever intimated/informed about the transfer of his RTI request from one Public Authority to another Public Authority i. e. from the PIO-cum- Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana  to PIO Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon.

XC) It clearly shows that PIO-cum-Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana took the RTI request of the appellant in casual manner  and did not deal with the same as per provisions of the RTI Act and hence he is liable for not fulfilling his responsibilities, assigned to him in the capacity of PIO as per RTI Act.

XCI) When Sh. Rasulpur informed the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana that he wanted to inspect the complete files, one of the official on behalf of Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana, who could not be identified sent that letter to PIO-cum-Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon again with the directions to deal the same under Section 6 (3) and informed the appellant

directly under intimation to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural),

Ludhiana.

XCII) Therefore, again Sh. Choudhary failed to produce evidence to show that he acted as PIO on that letter of Sh. Rasulpur, in which Sh. Rasulpur demanded the inspection of complete files as some other official of his office put his own signature on the note under which the request of Sh. Rasulpur was sent to SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon.

XCIII) In response to the demand of Sh. Rasulpur for inspection of complete files, he was informed by one of the representatives of the SSP, Ludhiana, Rural, through letter   number 500/RTI dated 30.07.2013, that a report was taken from PIO-cum-Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Jagraon on the same and is sent to him.

XCIV)  The correspondence regarding the fate of the RTI request of Sh. Rasulpur was

done on behalf of SSP, Rural, Ludhiana   and replies were made   on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ludhiana by his representative and sent to Sh. Rasulpur. Whatever report was procured from SHO, Police station, City, Jagraon by the SSP, Rural, Ludhiana or his representatives in connection with the request of Sh. Rasulpur , was sent to Sh. Rasulpur and SHO, Police Station, City,

Jagraon, who was made PIO in this case, as claimed by Sh Choudhary, was never allowed to carry out correspondence with Sh. Rasulpur. So it shows that office of SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, acted as post office between Sh. Rasulpur and SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon.

 

XCV) Another reason, which make it abundantly clear that SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, acted as PIO in this case, is related with the fact that in the proceedings of First Appeal made by Sh. Rasulpur before the Inspector General, Police, Jalandhar, the SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, was made party and not the SHO, Police Station, City, Ludhiana. It is clear from the letter number 10976/RTI, dated 19.08.2013, which has been placed on record. A copy of this letter was also sent to Sh. Rasulpur.

XCVI) Yet another reason, which further gives strength to the logic that SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, was PIO in this case, is related with the fact that in the reply made to First appellate authority, the SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, never claimed that he was not PIO in this case.

XCVII) Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, which deals with the transfer of application/request  for information from one Public authority to another Public Authority reads as under:

          Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—

(i) which is held by another public authority; or(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of

another public authority,

the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:

Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.”

XCVIII)  The plain reading of the contents of the Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, makes it much clear that first Public Authority is to transfer RTI request to another Public Authority.

XCIX) In the case in hand, it is to be seen that as to whether PIO of office of SSP, Ludhiana, Rural, and PIO of office of SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon, are separate Public Authorities or not.

C) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held in a case titled “The CPIO, Supreme Court Of India, ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009, held that …….

CI) The only issue that needs to be determined is as to whether the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court of India are two distinct Public Authorities or one Public Authority. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer again to the provisions of section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, the relevant part of which reads as under:

"2(h) "Public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self - government established or constituted..."

CII) The Public Authority, therefore, can only be an "authority" 'body' or an "institution" of self, government, established or constituted, by or under the Constitution or by any other law, or by an order made by the appropriate government.

CIII) The words "Authority, "body" or "institution" has not been distinctly defined in the Act, the expression "authority" in its etymological sense means a Body invested with power to command or give an ultimate decision, or enforce obedience or having a legal right to command and be obeyed. Webster's Dictionary of the English language defined "authorities as "official bodies that control a particular department or activity, especially of the Government. The expression other authorities has been explained as authorities entrusted with a power of issuing directions, disobedience of which is punishable as an offence, or bodies exercising legislative or executive functions of the state or bodies which exercise part of the sovereign power or authority of the State and which have power to make rules and regulations and to administer or enforce them to the detriment of the citizens. In the absence of any statutory definition or judicial W.P.(C) 288/2009 Page 5 interpretation to the contrary, the normal etymological meaning of the expression, has to be accepted as the true and correct meaning.

CIV) According to the dictionary meaning, the term "institution" means a body or organization or an association brought into being for the purpose of achieving some object. Oxford Dictionary defines an "institution as a establishment,

organization or an association instituted for the promotion of some objects especially one of public or general utility, religious, charitable, educational etc., The definition of the 'institution', therefore, includes an authority as well as a body. By very implication, the three terms exclude an "individual". Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Sub - collector, Ongole

- AIR 1969 SC 563 has observed that it is by no means easy to give definition of the word "institution" that would cover every use of it. Its meaning must always depend upon the context in which it is found.

CV) If the provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution are read in view of the above perspective, it would be clear that the Supreme Court of India, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and such number of judges as the Parliament may by law prescribe, is an institution or authority of which the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India is the Head. The institution and its Head cannot be two distinct public authorities. They are one and the same. Information, therefore, available with the Chief Justice of India must be deemed to be available with the Supreme Court of India. The Registrar of the Supreme Court of India, which is only a part of the Supreme Court cannot be categorized as a Public Authority independent and distinct from the Supreme Court itself.

CVI) In view of this, the question of transferring an application under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act by the CPIO of the Supreme Court cannot arise. It is the duty of the CPIO to obtain the information that is held by or available with the public authority. Each of the sections or department of a public Authority cannot be treated as a separate or distinct public authority. If any information is available with one section or the department, it shall be deemed to be available with the Public Authority as one single entity CPIO cannot take a view contrary to this.

CVII) In the instant case, admittedly, the information concerning the judges of the Supreme Court is available with the Supreme Court and the CPIO represents the Supreme Court as a public authority. Under the RTI Act, he is, therefore, obliged to provide this information to a citizen making an application under the RTI Act unless the disclosure of such information is exempted under the law…”

CVIII) So para 23 of the abovementioned judgement which mandates that “………Each of the sections or department of a public Authority cannot be treated as a separate or distinct public authority. If any information is available with one section or the

department, it shall be deemed to be available with the Public Authority as one single entity CPIO cannot take a view contrary to this…..”

CIX) Though public authorities can designate many Public Information Officers/Assistant Public Information Officers their purview for functioning cannot be divided on the basis of geographical are subject wise jurisdiction.

CX)  In a case titled as Er. Sarbajit Roy Vs Delhi Development Authority, the Central Information Commission (CIC), while disposing of the Appeal Number 10/1/2015-CIC held that,  “The DDA is a single public authority. Since this is a matter concerning adjustments within the same public authority Sec 6 (3) cannot apply.”

CXI) In another case titled as  S. S. Khan Vs Department of Posts, the CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION while disposing of Appeal Number 71/ICPB/2006, held in para 4 that …..In this connection , it is necessary to clarify certain aspects of the provisions of the RTI  Act, in view of the stand taken by the CPIO that each CPIO is a separate public authority and  information within his jurisdiction has to be obtained only from him by an applicant. Even though, in terms of Section 5(1) & (2) of RTI Act, a public authority could designate as many CPIOs/ACPIOs, the Act does not confer any specific jurisdiction in respect of each such officer  either in terms of geographical or subject wise or the like. The Act also does not prescribe that  each CPIO is a separate public authority by himself. He is only a part of the public authority which has designated him as such. The object of designation of many CPIOs/ACPIOs is only with the view that the citizens have a proximity of approach. Once a citizen applies to a CPIO of  a public authority, irrespective of where and with whom the information is available within the same public authority, it is the duty of that CPIO to furnish the information sough for in relation to that public authority, if necessary by obtaining the same from the concerned CPIO with whom the information sought may be available. There is no scope to either ask the citizen to approach  another CPIO within the same public authority or send the request for information to another CIPO with in the same public authority. Only in a case, where the information sought is held by another public authority, other than the one which has designated him as CPIO, he can transfer the request to that public authority for furnishing information to the applicant direct (Section 6(3)”

  

CXII) So in view of the factors/reasons mentioned in above para numbering LXXXIII to CXI And the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, who was PIO, can

not be allowed to plead that SHO, Police Station, City, Jagraon, must be treated as PIO, instead of him, in the instant case.

CXIII) So only SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, has been taken as PIO in this case and action is to be taken against him as per provisions of the RTI Act for making any default in fulfilling responsibilities assigned to him under the Act.

CXIV) The second question, which emerged in this case, is related with the fact that as to how the inspection of case files is barred under section 8 of the RTI Act.

CXV) In the instant Appeal case, SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, in all his replies, made to appellant, first appellate authority and in the affidavit filed before the Commission  during the proceedings of second appeal, has constantly maintained that  complete case file cannot be allowed for inspection to appellant as same is barred under section 8 of the RTI Act.

CXVI) The response of the PIO is certainly not convincing. Even assuming that the information was withheld as the cases were pending in trial court, the PIO should have recorded and amply demonstrated that as to how the inspection of complete case files would have affected the trial/ prosecution.

CXVII) Supplying the aforesaid information, as We perceive, would not have  impaired the process of investigation and prosecution of offenders more so when it is in the public domain. In the repeated responses of SSP, Rural, Ludhiana, It has not been shown ever that as to how the inspection of police case files and subsequently furnishing of information would impede the investigation or prosecution of offenders in the case pertaining to FIR number 240/2004 and FIR number 242/2005, registered in Police station, City, Jagraon.

CXVIII) No grounds have been made out by the Respondent PIO under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act to justify exemption from inspection of complete police files sought for by the appellant.

CXIX) The respondent PIO had failed in his legitimate duty in discharging his duties under RTI Act. Also, he failed to allow inspection of police files, even after the trial was closed and the accused was  acquitted on 28.03.2014 and name of the accused was dropped in the other case. Instead, he furnished the complete information only after 17.03.2015, almost a year after the criminal case was closed.

CXX) The other question, which emerged in this case, is related with the fact that as to how the inspection of case files, is barred as per section 172 (3) and section 173 (3) of the Cr. P. C. is barred.

CXXI) To determine this question, certain issues including the fact that whether application for seeking information under RTI Act shall be dealt as per provisions of the RTI Act or some other Act could be invoked or brought into force.

CXXII) The law makers, who were architect of the RTI Act-2005, has made a provision under Section 22 in the RTI Act.

CXXIII) Section 22 of the RTI Act, which reads as under : “The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act”.

CXXIV)  It also shows that RTI Act-2005 will have overriding effect on their acts, which are  in force on the time when RTI Act was enacted.

CXXV) So the respondent PIO concerned was not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 172(3)/173(3) of the Cr. P. C. to deny the inspection of files pertaining to criminal cases, registered in Police Station, City, Jagraon, to the appellant as per provisions of Section 22 the RTI Act.

CXXVI) Further, Section 22 of the RTI Act expressly provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non- obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was a conscious choice of the Parliament to safeguard the citizens' fundamental right to information from convoluted interpretations of other laws adopted by public authorities to deny information. The presence of Section 22 of the RTI Act simplifies the process of implementing the right to information both for citizens as well the PIO; citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by simply invoking the provisions of the RTI Act.

CXXVII) In the case titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. … Vs.  Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. … the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para number 18  of its judgement held that Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer-books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations.

CXXVIII) Considering all the facts of this case, We are of the thoughtful consideration that this is a fit case that attracts the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of RTI Act where the PIO had a mala fide intention for denying inspection of case/police files.

CXXIX) Therefore, the Commission is constrained to impose a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-  under Section 20 of RTI Act for having not allowed the inspection of police files/record to the appellant even after the mandatory period of 30 days and allowed it after lapse of more than one and half year.

CXXX) Also, the appellant is to be compensated u/s 19(8) b for the losses and detriment suffered and awards a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- which is to be paid out of the funds of the public authority.  The quantum of compensation is fixed after taking into consideration funds the appellant spend on attending the hearing, time he invested in inspection of police files and also the agony that accompanies waiting for information.

CXXXI) The amount of penalty should be deposited in the Government Treasury under Head : 0070-Other Administrative Services-60-Other Services-800-Other Receipts-86-Fees under the Right to Information Act in two equal  installments of Rs 12,500/- (Rs Twelve thousand and five hundred only) each, starting from the month of  March 2016 and  copy of  treasury  receipt be sent to the Commission, before the next date of hearing.  

CXXXII) In case he fails to deposit this amount before the next date of hearing, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs

and Justice, Chandigarh is directed to get it recovered from his salary and treasury receipt be produced at the time of next date of hearing.

CXXXIII) The amount of compensation to the tune of Rs 20,000/- (Rs Twenty thousands) is to be paid by the Public Authority and hence SSP, Jagraon is directed to make payment of Rs 20,000/- (Rs Twenty thousand) to Sh. Rasulpur through crossed cheque or bank draft, made from the bank account of Public Authority and not from the bank account of any individual official.

CXXXIV) Copies of the decision be sent to Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Chandigarh, Chief Director, Punjab Vigilance Bureau and also to Director General of Police, Punjab Police, Chandigarh and SSP, Jagraon through registered post with the direction to implement to order of the Commission and take other necessary corrective steps to avoid recurrence of such incidents, if they desire so and deem fit.

CXXXV) The case is adjourned to 29 th March, 2016 (Tuesday) at 12:30 P. M. in Chamber, S.C.O. 32–34, Sector 17- C, Chandigarh.

CXXXVI) A copy of this order be sent to Director General of Police, Pb.(HQ), ; Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab ; Chief Director, Punjab Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Chandigarh and Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jagraon for necessary action. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

(Ravinder Singh Nagi) (Harinder Pal Singh Maan) (Chander Parkash) S. I. C. S. I. C. S. I. C.

8th February, 2016

CC :

i) The Director General of Police, Pb.(HQ),(Regd. Post) Sector 9, Chandigarh

ii) The Additional Chief Secretary, (Regd. Post) Government of Punjab,

Pb. Civil Sectt, Chandigarh

iii) The Chief Director,(Regd. Post) Punjab Vigilance Bureau, Punjab,

S.C.O. 60-61, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh

iv) The Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural),(Regd. Post) Jagraon, Distt. – Ludhiana (Punjab)

v) Sh. Ashish Chowdhary,(Regd. Post) Assistant Inspector General (Personnel), Punjab,

Pb. Police HQs,Sector 9, Chandigarh