Andhra Pradesh : Information Commisioner judgment 2008

A.P. Information Commission
(under Right To Information Act, 2005)
HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad
Phone Nos: 23230245/246 (O), 23230591/92 (F)
Appeal No:3793/CIC/2008, dated 05-03-2009
Name of the Appellant & Address
:
Sri Kollu Durga Prasad, H.No.6, S.R. Enclave, Beside Vignan School, Madeenaguda, Hyderabad – 50
Name of the Public Authority
:
1) The Asst. Inspector General of Police (Admn), / Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act, 2005), O/o the DGP, A.P., Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.
2) The Inspector General of Police (Admn), Appellate Authority (U/RTI Act, 2005), O/o the DGP, A.P., Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad
O R D E R
Sri Kollu Durga Prasad, H.No.6, S.R. Enclave, Beside Vignan School, Madeenaguda, Hyderabad – 50 has filed 2nd appeal dated 27.05.2008 which was received by this Commission on 03.06.2008 for not getting the information sought by him from the PIO/AIG (Admn), O/o the DGP, A.P., Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and Appellate Authority/ IGP (Admn), O/o the DGP, A.P., Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.
The brief facts of the case as per the appeal and other records received along with it are that the appellant herein filed an application dated 30.11.2007 to the PIO seeking the following information regarding statistics of 498A and 3 & 4 of AP Dowry Prohibition acts:
1.
What is the procedure to be followed by police when a 498A case is filed?
2.
From the above judgments it is very clear that these laws are misused highly, so what are the guidelines given to police department to ensure that this act is not misused and innocent people do not suffer? (The Appellant has quoted excerpts from High Court and Supreme Court judgments regarding misuse of these Acts).
3.
Report of cases related to 498A with following details in district/police station wise from 2000 to till date
a)
FIR No./Other IPC sections included along with 498A
b)
Case filed date
c)
Brief summary of case
d)
Petitioner name, age, qualification, occupation.
e)
Accused names, age, qualification, occupation, sex
f)
Arrested (how many days in remand) or Anticipatory bail (session/high court)
g)
Current status of the case. If trail completed then names of people got convicted and what is the conviction.
h)
If a case is found false in trail or FIR stage, what action has been taken on people/police who filed/helped in filing these cases.
4.
Statistics of 498A cases with following details in following format in district:
a)
No. of 498A cases filed in each district, year wise from year 1995 to till date
b)
Total No. of 498A cases when daughter in law is alive.
c)
Total No. of 498A cases after death of daughter in law
d)
Total No. of accused when daughter in law is alive.
e)
Total No. of accused after death of daughter in law.
f)
Total No. of people got arrested.
g)
Total No. of people who got anticipatory bail.
h)
Total No. of accused who are women
i)
No. of cases found false at FIR stage.
j)
No. of cases found false at Trail stage.
k)
No. of cases got convicted when daughter in law is alive.
l)
No. of cases got convicted after death of daughter in law.
m)
No. of people got convicted (Male/Female)
n)
How many cases are filed under dowry prohibition Act 3 for giving dowry.
2
The PIO/AIG (Admn), O/o the DGP, Hyderabad through Memorandum Rc.No.264/RTI/2007 dated 17.12.2007 transferred copy of the Appellant’s representation U/s 6(3) of the Act to the PIO through All Commissioners of Police & Superintendents of Police for taking further necessary action within the time. The PIO/AIG (Admn) marked a copy of the said Memorandum to the Appellant advising him to get further information from the PIO and AA of all CsP and SsP as the information requested by him is not available in his office.
The Appellant filed 1st appeal dated 20.03.2008 before the Appellate Authority/IGP (Admn), O/o the DGP, Hyderabad stating that he got replies from the following authorities:
a)
ASP of Srikakulam District Sri D.K. Misra with complete details he has requested for on 10.01.2008 .
b)
ASP, Guntur District on 10.01.2008 forwarding his application to all PIO’s and SDPO’s of Guntur District.
c)
Mr. T.V. Shashidhar Reddy, SP, Chittoor District on 25.01.2008 asked him to collect the information by paying required amount which he paid but still awaiting for information.
d)
SP, Khammam District on 20.02.2008 asked him to collect the information by paying the required amount.
e)
SP, Nalgonda District on 28.02.2008 forwarded his application to all PIO’s and SDPO’s of Nalgonda District and one of the SDPO in turn forwarded to all police stations.
The Appellant in his 1st appeal has stated that since DGP office is the highest authority in police department in a State, first two points in his application can only be answered by PIO, DGP Office; that it is clear that only 3 districts responded to his application in time and 2 districts SP’s forwarded application asking to give information directly to him and in turn he has not received any response; that it is unfortunate that the other district authorities have not responded to Rc.No.264/RTI/2007 of DGP Office though already 3 months passed which shows the lacklacidial approach of public authorities in implementation of RTI Act. The Appellant further requested the Appellate Authority to consider his appeal and provide the information requested in his original application consolidated at state level or at least district level in CD format so that the same can be used easily for useful purpose; that if the application is forwarded U/s 6(3) of RTI Act from DGP office to SP, from SP to DSP and from DSP to CI and CI to SI then it takes years to get all the information and most of the information would be missed if not consolidated properly.
The Appellate Authority/ IGP(Admn), O/o the DGP through Memorandum Rc.No.18/RTI/Appeal/2008 dated 02.04.2008 informed the Appellant that his request to consolidate the information at State level or at least district level in CD format cannot be conceded to as the RTI Act, 2005 has jurisdiction only to ensure furnishing of available “information” as defined U/s 2(f) of the Act and it has no jurisdiction to provide answers to hypothetical questions which are not in the ambit of information ; that the CIC, APIC has also reiterated the above in his proceedings in Appeal No.5019/CIC/2007 dated 29.09.2007 on the complaint of Sri Kollu Ravindra Babu of Hyderabad; that U/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 if information is held by another public authority, such application shall be transferred to the public authority under intimation to the applicant; that since the information requested by the Appellant in his application is not available in the office the same has been sent to all Commissioners and Supdts., of Police U/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to furnish information directly to the applicant.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the Appellant preferred 2nd appeal before the Commission stating that he got replies from ASP, Srikakulam and Guntur District; SP, Chittoor; SP, Khammam; SP, Nalgonda; SP, Adilabad; SP, Karimnagar; SP, Vizianagaram; Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam; Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and he has yet to received information from – Anantapur, East Godavari, Kadapa, Kurnool, Medak, Mahaboobnagar, Nalgonda, Nellore, Nizamabad, Prakasam, R.R. District, Srikakulam, West Godavari and Warangal Districts ; that the Appellate Authority has referred to Appeal No.5019/CIC/2007 which is admitted in High Court and pending for decision. The Appellant requested the Commission to consider his appeal and issue notices to PIOs and Appellate Authorities and respective district SPs to provide the requested information.
3
After examining the material papers available on record, the appeal was taken on file and notices were sent to the parties concerned directing them to appear before this Commission for hearing on 24.02.2009.
The PIO/AIGP (Admn), O/o the DGP vide letter Rc.No.62/N1-RTI/2nd appeal/09 dated 20.1.2009 filed written affidavit stating that the application of the appellant was transferred to all District Supdts. Of Police/all Commissioners of Police U/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 with a request to furnish the information directly to the appellant; further as per Sec.2(f) of RTI Act, the available information will be furnished to the applicant; that the information sought by the Appellant does not come under Sec.2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005; the letters addressed to the appellant were sent through Speed Post from the office; the receipts of Speed Post given by the Postal Authorities are enclosed to the affidavit; as such it is requested to reject the request of the Appellant and close the case.
The Appellant vide E-mail informed that he is currently staying at Pune due to his work and requested the Commission to postpone the hearing of the case to April, if postponement is not possible, is it possible to attend the hearing over telephone, if yes to call him on 096230 23476; if not possible, requests to order DGP office to provide him information which he requested in consolidated form free of cost and ensure that RTI Act is implemented properly.
On 24.02.2009 the case was called. The Appellant was absent. Request for adjournment through E-mail was negatived. The Respondent learned IG, Sri Eswar Reddy was present and informed that the PIO/AIG (Admn), O/o the DGP, Hyderabad through Memorandum Rc.No.264/RTI/2007 dated 17.12.2007 transferred copy of the Appellant’s representation U/s 6(3) of the Act to the PIO through All Commissioners of Police & Superintendents of Police for taking further necessary action within the time; that the Appellant has filed 1st appeal requesting to consider his appeal and provide the information requested in his original application consolidated at state level or at least district level in CD format so that the same can be used easily for useful purpose; that the Appellate Authority/ IGP(Admn), O/o the DGP through Memorandum Rc.No.18/RTI/Appeal/2008 dated 02.04.2008 informed the Appellant that his request to consolidate the information at State level or at least district level in CD format cannot be conceded to as the RTI Act, 2005 has jurisdiction only to ensure furnishing of available “information” as defined U/s 2(f) of the Act and it has no jurisdiction to provide answers to hypothetical questions which are not in the ambit of information; that U/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 if information is held by another public authority, such application shall be transferred to the public authority under intimation to the applicant; that since the information requested by the Appellant in his application is not available in the office the same has been sent to all Commissioners and Supdts., of Police U/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to furnish information directly to the applicant.
The Commission after going through the contention of the Respondents, while upholding the decision of the Appellate Authority, directs the Appellant to obtain the information required from the concerned public authorities as has already been advised by the 1st Appellate Authority.
With the above direction, the appeal is closed.
C.D. Arha
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated by:
(R.V.S. Paul)
Dy. Registrar