Hindustan
Times: Chandigarh: Sunday, 11 December 2022.
Central Information Commission issues notice on plea of a head constable who was not provided info about consumable articles at the camp office of senior cops’ residences
The Central Information Commission has issued a show-cause notice to Rajeev Kumar Ambasta, former deputy superintendent of police (DSP) and central public information officer (CPIO), Chandigarh Police Headquarters, for wrongly denying information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
On June 5, 2019, head constable Jagjeet Singh had filed an RTI application, seeking information from the stock register of 2017 and 2018 about consumable articles at the camp office of the residences of the UT DGP, DIG, SSP, SSP (Headquarters) and SSP (Security and Traffic) for 2017 and 2018.
However, Singh was dissatisfied with the reply of the public information officer and had filed a first appeal and then a second appeal before the commission. Disposing of the appeal, the commission had directed the CPIO to offer an inspection of the relevant records and photocopies of documents desired by the appellant, and an inspection should be done within 21 days.
Following this, Singh also moved the Punjab and Haryana high court that directed the commission to decide his application under Section 20 of the RTI Act expeditiously.
At another hearing by the commission on November 22, 2021, Singh stated that the information sought by him was withheld by the CPIO on the grounds that it was personal information vide Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
He contested the claim, stating that the consumable items were bought from government money and cannot be considered personal. He also alleged that it was illegal to have camp offices and that’s the reason why neither the police maintain stock registers nor divulge information related to it.
Respondent DSP Niyati Mittal explained that the consumable items were bought from the stationary store and a register was maintained at the store rather than where the items were received. She alleged that the appellant is deliberately seeking the stock registers of the camp office as they were not maintained as a past practice.
The respondents agreed to pass a departmental order to maintain the registers physically till the online platform was operational. Countering the allegations of the appellant, they also mentioned that no misleading information had been provided to the appellant and all information had been provided as available to them.
In his decision, information commissioner Uday Mahurkar observed that the information sought by the appellant was incorrectly denied by wrongly invoking exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the then CSIO, DSP Rajiv Ambasta. The commission further observed that this exemption can only be claimed when information sought related to the personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party.
However, in this matter the information sought was about the government exchequer used for aforesaid items, the commissioner said, while issuing the show-cause notice to Ambasta. Ambasta has been given four weeks from the receipt of copy of the order, issued on November 25, to submit his written statements.
Central Information Commission issues notice on plea of a head constable who was not provided info about consumable articles at the camp office of senior cops’ residences
The Central Information Commission has issued a show-cause notice to Rajeev Kumar Ambasta, former deputy superintendent of police (DSP) and central public information officer (CPIO), Chandigarh Police Headquarters, for wrongly denying information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
On June 5, 2019, head constable Jagjeet Singh had filed an RTI application, seeking information from the stock register of 2017 and 2018 about consumable articles at the camp office of the residences of the UT DGP, DIG, SSP, SSP (Headquarters) and SSP (Security and Traffic) for 2017 and 2018.
However, Singh was dissatisfied with the reply of the public information officer and had filed a first appeal and then a second appeal before the commission. Disposing of the appeal, the commission had directed the CPIO to offer an inspection of the relevant records and photocopies of documents desired by the appellant, and an inspection should be done within 21 days.
Following this, Singh also moved the Punjab and Haryana high court that directed the commission to decide his application under Section 20 of the RTI Act expeditiously.
At another hearing by the commission on November 22, 2021, Singh stated that the information sought by him was withheld by the CPIO on the grounds that it was personal information vide Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
He contested the claim, stating that the consumable items were bought from government money and cannot be considered personal. He also alleged that it was illegal to have camp offices and that’s the reason why neither the police maintain stock registers nor divulge information related to it.
Respondent DSP Niyati Mittal explained that the consumable items were bought from the stationary store and a register was maintained at the store rather than where the items were received. She alleged that the appellant is deliberately seeking the stock registers of the camp office as they were not maintained as a past practice.
The respondents agreed to pass a departmental order to maintain the registers physically till the online platform was operational. Countering the allegations of the appellant, they also mentioned that no misleading information had been provided to the appellant and all information had been provided as available to them.
In his decision, information commissioner Uday Mahurkar observed that the information sought by the appellant was incorrectly denied by wrongly invoking exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the then CSIO, DSP Rajiv Ambasta. The commission further observed that this exemption can only be claimed when information sought related to the personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party.
However, in this matter the information sought was about the government exchequer used for aforesaid items, the commissioner said, while issuing the show-cause notice to Ambasta. Ambasta has been given four weeks from the receipt of copy of the order, issued on November 25, to submit his written statements.
.JPG)
.JPG)
