INFORMATION COMMISSION Kamadhenu Co-operative Super Market Building First Floor, New No.378, , , – 600018. Case No.27144/Enquiry/2008 Date of Enquiry: 8th April 2009 at CHENNAI Present: Thiru S. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.), State Chief Information Commissioner

Petitioner: Thiru T. Genga Reddy, S/o Thiru Duraisami Reddiar, VP Nagar, Melavalampettai Village, Post, Madurantakam Taluk.

Public Authority: The Public Information Officer, Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Collectorate, Kancheepuram. ------The petitioner was not present and the public authority was represented by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram. The petitioner made a complaint in his second appeal to the Commission stating the following points: 1. The Public Information Officer has not sent a reply within 30 days as provided for under the Act; 2. The first Appellate Authority viz., the Superintendent of Police has given reasons which are not tenable under the Act., because (a) the fact that the Police Station has not sent the investigation report in time is not an acceptable ground; (b) if the case is closed simply because of the complained party had given assurance that they will not create any trouble, it is a breach of the relevant laws of the land; (c) the work load should not be an excuse for not supplying the information.

3. He has also prayed that the penalty of Rs 25000 should be collected from the Public Authority and paid to him and to take severe departmental action against the Public Authority for the failure under the Act.

The Public Authority, who was present, had nothing further to add. On examining the plea of the petitioner, it is seen that the complaint that the information is not supplied within 30 days, non-receipt of report from the Public Authority and citing the work load as reason for the delay are not tenable excuses and the complaint is valid. The complaint regarding the investigation of the case or closure of the case because of any of the alleged compromise effected or that the Police have not acted as per the law are not issues falling under the purview of the Right to Information Act Hence this Commission will not go into this further but will remit it back to the Superintendent of Police for taking such action as may be called for as per their rules. The Public Information Officer is, however, liable to submit his explanation as to why he has not supplied the information within 30 days This may be obtained from the Public Information Officer concerned namely the officer in charge, Madurantakam Police Station and forwarded to the Commission within four weeks of this order. The public authority is further directed to ensure that the information asked for is supplied within a week of this order in full and in correct form for all the queries he has raised in his original application. The petitioner is informed that the penalty, if any, which is imposed on the Public Information Officer is money paid only to the Government treasury and not to the petitioner. Hence his application in this regard is rejected. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION Orders approved on 21st April 2009 Under orders of the Commission (S. MOHANA DHAS) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Case No.27144/Enquiry/2008 To The Public Information Officer, Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Collectorate, Kancheepuram.

Case No.27144/Enquiry/2008 The Inspector of Police, Madurantakam Police Station, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District.

Case No.27144/Enquiry/2008 Thiru T. Genga Reddy, S/o Thiru Duraisami Reddiar, VP Nagar, Melavalampettai Village, Karunguzhi Post, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District.