Gist : Petitioner seeks Records of custodial inquiry, duty roaster of police, general diary copies and para book, and permission to inspect the general diary copies, para book etc. This was promptly rejected under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act on 16-9-2009!! Petitioner goes on appeal to TN Information commission who instruct police to provide copies of the same
http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
Copy of order given below
TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION
Kamadhenu Co-operative Super Market Building First Floor,
New No.378, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600018. Phone: 2431 2841
Case No. 27471-C/Enquiry/2009
Date of Enquiry: 10th March 2010 at CHENNAI
Present: Thiru S. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.),
State Chief Information Commissioner.
Thiru G. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.),
State Information Commissioner.
Petitioner: Thiru V. Pandiyan, 2-A/4, Valamjee Mansion,
Opp. District Court, KK Nagar, Madurai - 20.
Public Authority: The Public Information Officer / Additional
Superintendent of Police (Crime), Dindigul.
------
Both the parties were present.
The petitioner asked for the following four items of information vide his RTI petition dated 3-9-2009:
1) Records pertaining to custodial enquiry of persons in Vadamadurai All Women Police Station from 5-10-2008 to 5-11-2008;
2) Duty roster of police personnel during the above period;
3) General Diary copies and para book for the period of October 2008;
4) Permission to inspect the para book, General Diary and Case Diary of this period.
This was promptly rejected under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act on 16-9-2009. The petitioner eschewed first appeal and came straight to the Commission on 28-10-2009 resulting in today's (10-3-2010) enquiry.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
At the enquiry, the only case pending investigation cited by the public authority is the enquiry by the State Human Rights Commission which, in the absence of a bar from that Commission, will not inhibit supply of information. The public authority's fear that revelation of this information will be detrimental to the case before the Human Rights Commission, etc., is no ground under Right to Information Act as the Commission has repeatedly held, even if transparency results in the loss of the case of the public authority, in an appropriate legal forum, that is an outcome in favour of justice and as such cannot be accepted as a reason to deny information.
Hence the Commission finds no ground here to uphold the rejection under Section 8(1)(h), and direct that information be supplied within ten days of this order and the petitioner's acknowledgment filed before the Commission.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
Orders approved on 17th March 2010
Under orders of the Commission
(S. MOHANA DHAS)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Case No.27471-C/Enquiry/2009
The Public Information Officer / Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime),
District Police Office, Dindigul.
Case No.27471-C/Enquiry/2009
Thiru V. Pandiyan,
2-A/4, Valamjee Mansion,
Opp. District Court,
KK Nagar, Madurai – 625 020.
PDF File UPLOADED TO : http://1drv.ms/1FreHS6
No comments:
Post a Comment