DNA: Mumbai: Thursday, February 23,
2017.
RTI applicant
from Dadar who sought details from the Mumbai Police of how cases of lost or
stolen mobile phones are dealt with.
On an
application filed by an RTI applicant from Dadar who sought details from the
Mumbai Police of how cases of lost or stolen mobile phones are dealt with, the
State Information Commission (SIC) has asked police to provide details of the
register that keeps track of missing mobile phones. It has also asked to
provide details of the Commissioner or DGP's letter on what the police is
supposed to do when they get such a complaint, and the report that they finally
prepare in such cases. The order was given after the police failed to provide
information to an applicant.
Mahendra
Dharod from Dadar had filed the RTI application. He further demanded details
about officers who are supposed to look into the complaints, the rules,
regulations and standard procedure to be followed while recovering such mobile
phones, number of mobile phones traced, reasons recorded if mobiles are not
traced, and time period in which the mobile phone has to be kept under
tracking.
In his reply,
the Public Information Officer (PIO) stated there was no public interest that
will be served while giving the information and hence, it was denied under the
clause that it was personal in nature. The section cited while denying the
information by the PIO was 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
The section
reads, "(There shall be no obligation to give any citizen) information
which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate
authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information
which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be
denied to any person."
When Dharod
approached the first appellate authority, he too dismissed the application
stating that PIO had given right information. During the second appeal, the
commission first directed the police department to provide information about
the 'register of missing articles' that contains such information, orders of
police commissioners on how to go about investigating such missing articles and
the letter that police stations give to the officers. When the order was not
complied, a complaint was filed.
During the
complaint hearing on non-compliance of his order, Ajitkumar Jain, the
Information Commissioner (Brihanmumbai bench) asked the assistant secretary of
the commission to conduct an enquiry, and call for all the above details and
provide them to the applicant. It also said that rules and the opinion on them
also be provided to the commission. The complaint hearing order was issued on
January 31, 2017.
"The
reason I had sought this information is because most of the time police
officials refuse to file an FIR when a mobile phone is lost. They instead issue
a missing certificate. I wanted to know what they do after that. They had said
earlier that they relay information to different police stations, and then do
not do anything about it. I will wait to get all information from them,"
said Dharod.