Delhi High Court
Harkrishan Das Nijhawan vs Satyavir Katar, Cpio Delhi Police ... on 24 April, 2017
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1882/2017
HARKRISHAN DAS NIJHAWAN ..... Petitioner
versus
SATYAVIR KATAR, CPIO DELHI POLICE
LICENSING UNIT & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Panwar and Mr. Akshay Choudhary,
Advocates for GNCTD
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
24.04.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner by the present petition seeks quashing of order
dated 29.12.2017 whereby the application of the petitioner under
Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks
initiation of disciplinary inquiry against the respondent no. 1 to 4 in
response to show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the Act.
2. The petitioner had sought certain information from the
respondents under the Act. The information was denied. The
petitioner aggrieved there from filed an application under Section
20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The proceedings initiated
under Section 20(1) of the Act have been closed vide the impugned
order dated 29.12.2016.
3. It is an admitted position that the information has already been
furnished to the petitioner. The CIC had directed that redacted
information be provided. The petitioner has already received un-
redacted information in a public interest litigation filed by the
petitioner.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved there from, filed an application
under Section 20(1) of the Act. The proceedings initiated under
Section 20(1) of Act the have been closed by the impugned order
dated 29.12.2016.
5. The CIC in the impugned dated 29.12.2016 has recorded as
under:-
"Hearing on 22.11.2016:
11. The respondents S/Shri Satyavir Katara, DCP
(Licencing), Ved Parkash, ACP(Licencing) and SI Kamal
Kishore were present in person.
12. The respondent in his written submissions dated
21.10.2016 and 22.11.2016 has submitted that there was
no intention to deny any information to the complainant.
However, the reasons for not furnishing the information
to their complainant is that the report of Special Branch'
contains the enquiry, report in respect of the complainant
and as such the information was denied under Section
8(l)(g) of the RTI Act because the disclosure of
information would endanger physical safety of the
person/enquiry officer, who prepared the enquiry report.
In view of this, a view was taken that the disclosure of the
information sought was exempted under Section 8(l)(g) of
the RTI Act. The respondent agreed that information
could have been provided after severance of the
information whose disclosure was exempted under the
RTI Act. However, inadvertently the reply dated
26.06.2015 was furnished to the complainant. The
respondent stated that their act was, however, not
intentional or deliberate. The respondent further
submitted that the information sought can be provided to
the complainant. The respondent also stated that the
lapse was due to incorrect interpretation of the provision
of the RTI Act, and not due to malafide intent to deny
information to the complainant. Hence, the respondent
requested the Commission to drop the Show Cause notice
issued against them.
Decision:
13. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of
the respondent and perusing the records, observes that
the disclosure of the information sought on the point nos.
2 and 3 of the RTI application could have endangered the
physical safety of the person/enquiry officer, who had
prepared the enquiry report. However, the Commission is
of the opinion that the information could have been
provided after severance of the information, disclosure of
which was exempted under the RTI Act. Hence, the
respondent has not interpreted the provisions of Section
8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the right perspective to
deny information to the complainant. However, this was
done in good faith and there was no malafide intent on
part of the respondent to deny or obstruct the flow of
information to the complainant. The denial, therefore,
was on account of incorrect interpretation of Section 8(1)
(g) of the RTI Act, by the respondent, who as per his own
understanding, interpreted and applied it to the facts of
the present case, in order to prevent any danger to the
physical safety of the person/enquiry officer, who had
prepared the enquiry report. In view of this, it would not
be appropriate to impose a penalty on the CPIO. The
show cause notice against the respondent is, therefore
dropped."
6. The CIC has accepted the explanation rendered by the
respondent that information was bonafidely not provided and the
action was taken in good faith. The CIC has further accepted the
explanation that there was no malafide intention on the part of the
respondent to deny or obstruct the flow of information to the
complainant.
7. The information was withheld as the respondents were of the
view that disclosure of information could have endangered the
physical safety of the person/enquiry officer, who had prepared the
enquiry report. The Respondent had interpreted the provisions of the
Act and declined to provide information in order to prevent any
danger to the physical safety of the person/enquiry officer, who had
prepared the enquiry report.
8. I am of the view that the view taken by the CIC is a plausible
view. The application under Section 20(1) of the Act is really between
the CIC and CPIO. The CIC has rightly decided not to take any
further action and the view taken by the CIC is a plausible view.
9. I find no infirmity with the view taken by the CIC and find no
ground to interfere with the order passed by the CIC. I find no merit in
the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
cost.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 24, 2017
'rs'
