Writ - Sadhana
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
This petition preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of and/or seeking appropriate order(s) in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) for issuance of order(s), direction(s) to the respondent(s) herein directing them to quash the impugned order dated 28.12.2006, provide the information(s) sought by the petitioner herein vide her application dated 13.07.2006 under Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and impose penalty and initiate disciplinary proceedings under the service laws and criminal proceedings under the criminal law on respondent no 2 and respondent no 3.
13.07.2006 : RTI application before CPIO of PM office.
22.08.2006 : Respondent no 2 replied to the application of petitioner.
05.10.2006 : First appeal before respondent no 3. Respondent no 3 refused the information to the petitioner under section 8 (1) (e) and section 8(1) (g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005).
: Filed second appeal before respondent no 1.
11.12.2006 : Hearing held.
28.12.2006 : Final order passed by respondent no 1. Respondent no 1 accepted the contention of respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 that the information that was requested by petitioner was very old and the particular file had been weeded out. Respondent no 1 further directed respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 to furnish the destruction certificate to the petitioner.
27.01.2007 : Destruction certificate is received by petitioner which mentions the date of destruction as 23.02.2007 which is after the order passed by respondent no 1.
……… : Letter of petitioner to initiate action against respondent no 2 for making false statement before respondent no 1 and also misleading respondent no 1.
Respondent no 1 has failed to respond to the letter of petitioner till date.
HENCE THIS WRIT PETITION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 AND ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND
IN THE MATTER UNDER SECTIONS 6, 7, 18, 20(1) AND 20(2) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
AND
IN THE MATTER OF QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.12.2006 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO 1
AND
IN THE MATTER OF PERJURY AGAINST RESPONDENT NO 2 AND RESPONDENT NO 3 FOR MAKING FALSE AVERMENTS BEFORE RESPONDENT NO 1
AND
IN THE MATTER OF MISLEADING RESPONDENT NO 1 BY MAKING FALSE AND UNTRUE STATEMENT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF RESPONDENT NO 1 NOT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF MATTER DESPITE REPEATED REQUEST OF PETITIONER AGAINST THE FALSE STATEMENT MADE BY RESPONDENT NO 2 AND RESPONDENT NO 3
AND
IN THE MATTER OF DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO 1 TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENT NO 2 AND RESPONDENT NO 3 AND NOT TO CLOSE THE CASE TILL SUCH TIME AS INFORMATION WERE PROVIDED TO PETITIONER’S SATISFACTION.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. Sadhna,
W-9, 148 A, Kishan Gadh,
Near Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi 110070. … Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Information Commission
4th & 5th Floor, Block No. IV,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067
2.Shri Ravinder Singh Yadav,
Public Information Officer,
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South West District,
Delhi Police,
Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi.
3. Shri Rajesh Kumar,
Appellate Authority,
Joint Commissioner of Police,
Southern Range,
Delhi Police,
New Delhi … Respondent(s)
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and the other Companion Judges of
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH.
1. This is a petition preferred by the petitioner herein under the provisions of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of and/or seeking appropriate order(s) in the nature of Certiorari and that of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) for issuance of order(s), direction(s) to the respondent(s) herein to provide the information(s) sought by the petitioner herein vide her application dated 13.07.2006 under Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and set aside the order dated 28.12..2006 passed by respondent no 1 and impose penalty and initiate disciplinary proceedings under the service laws and criminal proceedings under the criminal law on respondent no 2 and respondent no 3.
2. The petitioner is a resident of Kishan Gadh, Near Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The petitioner lives along with her husband and children. On 14.12.2001 at around 11.30 am, when she was alone at her home, she was brutally beaten up by her neighbours Mr. Pramod, Ms. Anita, Ms. Sunita and Ms. Suman Thukral. Petitioner was further given a threat that if she informed police, her husband would be falsely implicated in some charge. Despite the above criminal intimidation petitioner informed police. The police took petitioner to Safdarjung Hospital and a medical report no 29069 – 38995 / 14/12 was prepared. On the same day petitioner’s statement was recorded by Mr. Yog Dev, Vigilance Officer of Delhi Police and Mr. Om Kumar, District Investigation Unit, South West, Delhi Police. However, despite the medical report and statement of the petitioner police refused to register a case against the neighbours of petitioner. Petitioner made various representations dated ……., ………. and ……..before police, but there was no response from police.
3. The respondent 1 is Central Information Commission, a statutory body constituted under the provision of section 12 of the RTI Act. Respondent no 1 is responsible for, apart from hearing appeals from the order passed by the first appellate authority of the Public Information Officer, taking cognizance of complaints filed by persons who have been refused access to any information(s) requested or who have not been given response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under the RTI Act, 2005. Respondent no 1 is also vested with the same power as that of the civil court while trying suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and also has a statutory duty to impose penalty on such Public Information Officers who fail to provide complete and correct information within prescribed time limits without a reasonable cause. Respondent no 2 is and respondent no 3 are Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of Delhi Police, respectively. It is submitted that Delhi Police is a government organization and is a public authority for the purposes of RTI Act, 2005.
4. The facts leading to the present case are stated as under:
a) On 14.12.2001 when petitioner was alone at home, she was brutally beaten up by her neighbours Mr. Pramod, Ms. Anita, Ms. Sunita and Ms. Suman Thukral. She was dragged out of her house by pulling hair and then she was taken to her neighbours house where there was use of criminal force against her. She was locked up in a room and was also criminally intimidated against informing the police. Despite the threat she informed police, who then took petitioner to the Safdarjung Hospitar where a medical report was prepared. Petitioner’s statement was also recorded by police officials but no action was taken against the neighbours who beat up petitioner.
b) Petitioner made various representations dated ……., ……… and …….before police. On these representations also no action was taken by the police. A copy of all the representations are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “I”.
c) On 25.09.2002 petitioner and her husband were again brutally beaten up by the same neighbours. This time police registered an FIR no ……../2002 against the neighbours of petitioner under section 323 of Indian Penal Code. A copy of the FIR no……./2002 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “II”.
d) However, on the same day, that is 25.09.2002 one Mr. Pradeep Thakran and his wife Mrs………… filed a false case against the petitioner and her husband. An FIR was registered by police against petitioner and her husband. A copy of the FIR no ………./2002 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “III”.
d) On 18.09.2003 there was again an attempt to murder upon the petitioner’s husband and her daughter when they were alone in their house. An FIR no ………/2003 was registered by petitioner and her husband against the same neighbours. A copy of the FIR no …………/2003 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “IV”.
e) The petitioner kept making oral and written representations/ requests before police to register her case. Some of the requests are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “V”.
f) On 13.07.2006 petitioner filed an RTI application before the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Prime Minister’s Office. The RTI application was the sent to the concerned police officer, that is respondent no 2 for reply. A copy of the RTI application dated 13.07.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “VI”.
g) Vide letter dated 22.08.2006 respondent no 2 replied to the RTI application of the petitioner and informed her that the documents pertaining to the year 2001 have been destroyed vide order no 2771-75/ South West District/……. Dated 17.09.2004. A copy of the reply dated 22.08.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “VII”.
h) On being dissatisfied with the reply of respondent no 2, the petitioner filed first appeal before respondent no 3 on 27.08.2006. A copy of the first appeal dated 27.08.2006 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “VIII”.
i) Respondent no 3 vide order dated ………….. upheld the reply of respondent no 2 and refused the information to the petitioner under section 8 (1) (e) and section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005. A copy of the order dated …….. is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “IX”.
j) Petitioner aggrieved with the response of respondent no 3 filed second appeal before respondent no 1. A copy of second appeal is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “X”.
k) Respondent no 1 held hearing on 11.12.2006 when both petitioner and respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 were called. Respondent no 1 reserved the order on the date of hearing.
l) On 28.12.2006 respondent no 1 passed the order and directed respondent no 2 to provide the destruction certificate of the records mentioned in the RTI application if petitioner within a period on one week. Respondent no 1 further directed Deputy Commissioner of Police (Legal Cell) Mr. R. S. Ghumman to take petitions filed by the petitioner before various police authorities in the year 2001 for fresh appraisal and necessary action.
m) On 27.01.2007 petitioner received destruction certificate from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West District, New Delhi which clearly stated that the records that police claimed to have been destroyed in the year 2004 were ordered to be destroyed on 24.11.2006 that is after the filing of RTI application by the petitioner and the documents were actually destroyed on 23.02.2007, that is, after passing of the order of respondent no 1. A copy of the destruction certificated is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE “XI”.
n) This shows that the records sought by petitioner vide her RTI application existed with respondent no 2 and 3 on the day of hearing before respondent no 1. Respondent no 2 and 3 falsely claimed before respondent no 1 that the records had been destroyed whereas in fact the records were still there. They were destroyed after the date of hearing. Respondent no 1 blindly accepted the plea of respondent no 2 and 3 without ascertaining the truth and closed the case in a mechanical manner. The petitioner is still not sure whether the records have actually been destroyed or not.
o) Petitioner, vide her letter dated ………….., informed respondent no 1 that respondent no 2 has destroyed the documents only after passing of the order of respondent no 1. Respondent no 1 has till date failed to respond to this letter of petitioner. A copy of this letter dated ……….. is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE “XII”.
p) It is submitted that in view of the facts stated herein above, it is amply clear that the petitioner herein has not left any stone unturned in pursuing her application under the RTI Act dated 13.07.2006 before the office of the respondent no. 1, respondent no 2 and respondent no 3 in every possible manner but all the respondents have failed and / or neglected to respond in a positive manner to the various representations, requests and verbal reminders of the petitioner herein till date.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has no option except to approach this Hon’ble Court at this stage of the matter.
6. It is submitted that in view of the facts and submissions stated hereinabove it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has done everything that she could under the RTI Act, 2005 and, therefore has a legal and valid right to claim the information from the respondent no. 1 and 2 and 3 and respondent no 1, 2 and 3 being public servants are duty bound to consider and grant the information to the petitioner herein at the earliest possible in order to avoid any further loss and damage to the petitioner’s right to information.
7. It is submitted that under the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove, the petitioner has been left with no option and / or alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under the provisions of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to file the present writ petition and seek appropriate relief(s) from this Hon’ble Court.
8. It is submitted that the office of the respondent no 1, 2 and 3 is located in Delhi, and as such this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and grant relief(s) as sought for under this writ petition.
9. It is submitted that Annexure I to XII as annexed to this writ petition are true copies of the originals.
10. It is submitted that the petitioner herein reserve their right to further amend, supplement such other further facts and submissions as may be deemed fit and proper and necessary in the interests of justice during the course of the pendency of this writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.
11. It is submitted that there is no equally effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner for relief as claimed and sought for in this writ petition.
12. It is submitted that the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court or before this Hon’ble Court or any other Courts in India pertaining to the subject matter in the present petition.
13. It is submitted that being seriously affected and aggrieved by the decision of the respondent no.1 with regard to the petitioner’s applications under RTI Act, 2005 dated 13.07.2006 as stated hereinabove, the petitioner prefers this writ petition on following amongst other
G R O U N D S
A. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to exercise its jurisdiction as provided under section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 as it is a statutory body constituted under the RTI Act, 2005 and is also vested with the same power as that of the civil court while trying suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to summon and enforce attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; require discovery and inspection of documents; receiving evidence on affidavit; requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any office; issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents.
B. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to take into consideration the letter dated ………… of the petitioner stating that respondent no 2 has falsely stated before respondent no 1 and appropriate action be taken against respondent no 2.
C. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to consider the fact that making a false averment before itself is an act not less than perjury punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
D. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to take any proactive action against respondent no 2 despite being made aware of the fact that respondent no 2 has falsely made a statement before it and also misled respondent no 1.
E. BECAUSE respondent no 1 should have called for the destruction certificate before itself before disposing of the appeal instead of ordering destruction certificate to be given to petitioner directly after disposing of the appeal.
F. BECAUSE respondent no 1 failed to impose penalty under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 as respondent no 1 failed to consider the fact that respondent no 2 replied to the RTI application of the petitioner after expiry of 30 days as is statutorily provided in the RTI act.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take this Writ Petition into consideration and issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, writ of mandamus and / or such other writ(s) as may be deemed fit and proper to :
a) call for records of the file no CIC/AT/A/2006/00445 filed by the petitioner before respondent no 1, and;
b) to quash the impugned order dated 28.12.2006; and
c) direct respondent no 1 to initiate action against respondent no 2 for perjury, and;
d) direct respondent no 1 impose monetary penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on respondent no 2, and
e) direct respondent no 1 to recommend departmental proceedings under the service rules against respondent no 2, and;
f) direct respondent no 1 not to close the case till such time as the petitioner receives satisfactory information;
g) pass such other further order(s) / direction(s) as is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVERY AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
Petitioner
Through
(Advocate)
New Delhi
Date: .04.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. Sadhna … Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commissioner and ors … Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sadhna, aged 40, wife of Mr. Arun Kumar, resident of W-9/148, A-1, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
That I am petitioner in the above petition and fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence fully competent to file the affidavit.
That the accompanying petition has been drafted by my counsel on my instructions and I have gone through the contents of the accompanying petition and contents therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from.
That the Annexures to the petition are true copies of their respective documents.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this the day of May, 2007 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and also on the basis of information received and believed to be correct. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2007
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. Sadhna … Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commissioner and ors … Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sadhna, aged 40, wife of Mr. Arun Kumar, resident of W-9/148, A-1, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am petitioner in the above petition and fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence fully competent to file the affidavit.
2. That the accompanying application has been drafted by my counsel on my instructions and I have gone through the contents of the accompanying application and contents therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this the day of May, 2007 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and also on the basis of information received and believed to be correct. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
( ) pass such other further order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Petitioner
Through
Advocate
New Delhi
Date: .04.2007
( ) pass such other further order(s), direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVERY AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
Petitioner
Through
Advocate
New Delhi
Date: .05.2007