7522/Cic-Srs/2018

TELANGANA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION (Under Right to Information Act, 2005) Samachara Hakku Bhavan, D.No.5-4-399, ‘4’ Storied Commercial Complex, Housing Board Building, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad – 500 001. Phone Nos: 040-24740107 (o); 040-24740592(f) Appeal No. 7522/CIC/2018 Dated: 15-10-2019 Appellant : Sri Keloth Krishna, Khammam District Respondent : The Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act, 2005) / O/o. the Station House Officer, Kalluru Police Station, Khammam District The Appellate Authority (U/RTI Act, 2005) / O/o. the Circle Inspector of Police, Sathupally Rural, Khammam District. O R D E R Sri Keloth Krishna, Khammam District has filed 2nd appeal dated 04-05-2018 which was received by this Commission on 08-05-2018 for not getting the information sought by him from the PIO / O/o. the Station House Officer, Kalluru Police Station, Khammam District and 1st Appellate Authority / O/o. the Circle Inspector of Police, Sathupally Rural, Khammam District. 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 08-03-2018 before the PIO requesting to furnish the information under Sec.6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, on the following points mentioned in his application: The Public Information Officer has not furnished the information to the appellant. Since the appellant did not receive the information from the Public Information Officer, he filed 1st appealTSIC dated 09-04-2018 before the 1st Appellate Authority requesting him to furnish the information sought by him u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The 1st Appellate Authority / O/o. the Circle Inspector of Police, Sathupally Rural, Khammam District, Vide Letter No. 271/CI-H/2018, Dated 24-04-2018, has furnished the information to the Appellant. As the appellant did not get the complete information from the Public Information Officer / 1st Appellate Authority even after 30 days of filing his 1st appeal, he preferred this 2nd appeal before this Commission requesting to take action against the PIO and 1st Appellate Authority for not furnishing information sought by him and also to arrange to furnish the information sought by him u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. The 2nd appeal was taken on file and notices were issued to both the parties for hearing on 15-10-2019. On 15-10-2019 the case is called. The case is called. The appellant is present. The Public Information Officer, SI of Police, Kalluru PS through letter dated 14.10.2019 requested leave of absence and deputed the Head Constable and APIO to attend the hearing. The APIO filed affidavit of the Public Information Officer wherein the PIO submitted that information was furnished to the appellant through letter dated 18.04.2018. Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required. The appellant submitted that he did not receive the sought information from the PIO. As per the instructions of the Commission the APIO furnished copy of reply datd 18.04.2018 to the appellant in the presence of the Commission. The appellant is advised to go through the information furnished by the Public Information Officer and submit his objections, if any, in writing, to the Commission within one week from today. The case was adjourned. The Appellant filed objections on 12-12-2019. Wherein he submitted that he requested the investigating agency to reopen Cr.No.83/2013 as it was closed being “false case”. He also submitted that he filed representation dated 10-04-2014 against several officers of Kallur Police Station but the concerned police reported that it does not come under their Jurisdiction. He further submitted that no FIR was issued against his complaint dated 14-05-2013, 14-05-2014 and 04-04-2016. He also submitted that the investigating agency did not record statements of witness. He also submitted that the report given by him through Registered post to Kallur Police Station and report given by him at Police Station Bansi on 10-06-2013 is reported by them as not received. The Appellant also alleged harassment and threatening by Police Station Kallur. He also submitted that he has not received copy of FIR in Cr.No.44/2013 U/s. 420 of Police Station Kallur. A perusal of above objections go to show, that the appellant is seeking reasons for certain action and asking questions from the investigating agency. The PIO has submitted that he has furnished available and held information. Under the RTI Act 2005 “information” is defined in Sec.2(f) as: (f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer (Spl.Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 of 2009) has categorically held: “ An applicant under Sec.6 of the RTI Act, 2005 can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the Public Authority under law, Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars orders etc. have been passed. The Hon’bleTSIC High Court of Bombay at Goa in Dr.Celsa Pinto Va. Goa State Information Commission (LNIND 2008 GOA 51) held: “ The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.” The Commission however, directs, the PIO to furnish copy of FIR in Cr.No.44/2013 U/s. 420 IPC of Police Station Kallur within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above direction, the appeal is closed. Dr. Raja Sadaram Soma Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated by: Assistant Registrar Copy to: IT Section/SF Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required. TSIC Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required..

Load more