Case: Mr. Surinder Puri Vs Superintending Engineer and PIO. Central Information Commission
| Judges | Shailesh Gandhi, I.C. |
| Issue | Right to information |
| Judgement Date | March 25, 2010 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
Decision: Shailesh Gandhi, I.C. Background: 1. The Commission passed an order on 29/12/2009 vide Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002861/61 10 in which both parties were directed to conduct joint- inspection of Property No. 224, Gali No. 7, Padam Nagar, Kishan Ganj, Delhi 11007. The joint inspection was to be conducted in the presence of the Appellant (Mr. Surinder Puri) and the following departments of the MCD - House Tax, Building Department and Engineering Department on 12/01/2010 at 10.30 am. 2. The Commission received a letter dated 28/01/2010 from the Appellant Mr. Surinder Puri wherein he alleged physical assault and brutal manhandling of two office bearers of the Public Grievance and Welfare Society, namely Mr. Ajay Kumar (General Secretary) and Mr. Manmohan Gupta (Treasurer), who were among the other members who accompanied the Appellant for the joint inspection. In the letter it has been stated that the inspection was initiated in the presence of the following MCD officials - AE Mr. Arya, JE Mr. v. S.Rai, AE (Bldg.) Mr. Singh, two officials of MCD House Tax Department and the Land and Estate Department. According to the letter, there were seven police constables of Sarai Rohilla Police Station who were also present during the inspection on site. The AE Mr. Arya is said to have only allowed two of the society members to inspect the property site. Therefore, both Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Manmohan Gupta went in for the inspection on the Appellant's behalf. It has been alleged that while the inspection was on, Municipal Councillor Mr. Satbir Singh along with his accomplices (reportedly son and nephew) came with a mob of 30 people and inflicted brutal physical assault with an iron rod on Mr. Ajay Kumar which has said to have caused him a fracture of the nose bone and that Mr. Manmohan Gupta was slapped and bullied. Furthermore, it has been alleged that when an attempt was made to file a FIR against the said attack, the case was only registered after the society lodged a complaint with the CMM (North). The complaint also mentioned that Mr. Ajay Kumar was taken to 3. The Commission registered a Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000163 in accordance with Section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act. 4. Section 18 of the RTI Act states: 18. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,- (a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be; (b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act; (c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act; (d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable; (e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and (f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act. (2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.. (3) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (4) Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament, or the State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds. 5. If the allegations made by the Complainant were true, it meant that persons lawfully exercising their rights under the Right to Information Act were being unduly harassed and physically assaulted. The allegations that the assault was carried out in the presence of police and MCD officials led to a suspicion of probable collusion. The Commission has been given the powers to initiate an enquiry in a complaint under Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act, when enquiring into a complaint under Section 18 (1). Section 18 (3) of the RTI Act also confers the powers of a 6. Given the gravity of the matter the Commission wrote letters dated 18/02/2010 to the Commissioner of Police and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of... |
To continue reading
Request your trial