Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that on 23.12.2013 complainant made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act-2005) addressed to the State Public Information Officer (S.P.I.O.) of Kolkata Police, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata Police Headquarters, 18, Lalbazar Street, Kolkata – 700001 to obtain certain specific information of the six Police Stations under Kolkata Police and also filed the said application in the said office of Kolkata Police accompanied with the court fee of Rs.10/- as application fee under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 read with rule 3 of the West Bengal Right to Information Rules, 2006.
As per provision of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 the said S.P.I.O. had to provide the complainant the said information as specified by the complainant in his RTI application within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said RTI application dated 23.12.2013. But in the meantime the said time limit of 30 days expired but S.P.I.O. has failed to provide the complainant any information as per the said RTI application which is the denial of the information as per RTI Act. Complainant as RTI applicant had paid requisite fee of Rs. 10/- for seeking the said information and no doubt it falls within the scope and ambit of section 2 (1)(o) of the C.P. Act 1986 because service is hired by the complainant from the op by paying requisite fees and for which op has rendered negligent and deficient manner of service and for that reason complainant has filed this complaint as consumer.
On the other hand op by filing written objection has submitted that complainant filed an application under RTI Act 2005 addressed to the op regarding some information about certain police stations under Kolkata Police and op received of the said application from the complainant requesting to furnish the information to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Division and South Division to serve the information as sought for and op received the information from Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division related to Hastings Police Station and Park Street Police Station but not received the information of Deputy Commissioner of Police of Central Division and the op was waiting for the report as sought for by the complainant and thereafter op requested the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Division on 03.01.2014 to furnish the information as sought for by the complainant and op received the report from Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Division on 28.02.2014 and thereafter sent it to the complainant and op received the notice to show cause which has been filed against op vide CDF/Unit II/C.C. No. 95/2014 and practically op has no intentional laches to furnish the report and in the above circumstances op prayed for passing necessary order.
Decision with reasons
After hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the written version of the Joint Commissioner of Police (A), Kolkata & S.P.I.O. present also the charge of Joint Commissioner of Police Administration and S.P.I.O. Kolkata Police temporarily has filed on 08.05.2014 by the op. It is found that complainant filed application under RTI Act on 23.12.2013, thereafter complainant waited much as per RTI Rules did not get information from S.P.I.O. Then it is clear that S.P.I.O. had been sitting idle and did not care to inform the complainant that what is the problem for which reply has not been given. Fact remains this is the common picture of all the Police officer when any internal matter is required by any public and fact remains when any such information is sought for by public, police officer managed to prepare their books in order and that is the common practice and for last 30 years as Magistrate of SDJM as Public and Judicial Officer, the President of this Forum had very confirmed experience about the conduct of the police administration.
Truth is that S.P.I.O. may be higher police officer, but in this case it is found that DSP Central did not follow the instruction and S.P.I.O. brought that fact before this Forum in his written statement. But irregularity is that S.P.I.O. is not the penalized officer who did not comply the order of S.P.I.O. Fact remains always there is nexus among the police administration and it is a common practice of the police administration not to disclose the truth because there are so many fault and many negative action has been taken in many cases. But truth is that if police officers are honest in their daily duties and administration there is no fear for any police officer to get any sort of punishment. It is the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some cases the honest police officer must have to submit everything honestly before Court or the public. If honest approach can here and there, there is no question of accusation of any police officer for any reason. But lack of honesty for which police are being condemned from all circle even from Court. In this case the conduct as S.P.I.O. is no doubt uncalled for. He has no control over their other police officers. But such an S.P.I.O. should not hold such a office because he has no capacity to control this office by upgrading and directing other officers to comply the order and to submit the report within time. Nowadays this is the vital picture of the S.P.I.O. in respect of all department and S.P.I.O.s are practically dictated by the head of the office and they have nothing to do to give relief the public as per RTI Act and for which lakhs of application are lying before several S.P.I.O.s and same are not being disposed of.
In fact the total administration in this regard has taken a negative attitude for which the very purpose of RTI Act has been frustrated and for which lakhs of applications are in the baggage of the office of S.P.I.O. which are reluctant to give answers. But we have failed to understand whether they are the back benches of the school for which they are not answering it or they are guided by the higher authority in their service not to give answer or whether it is their habit to harass the public at large.
After considering the present written version it is clear that out of 3 they are following the two factors, one highest authority directed not to release any information to public or to any other as per RTI Act and at the same time S.P.I.O. has no desire to give any answer because answers shall reflect many flaws, defects, illegality etc be ventilated. In Indian History the rule of law is not at all followed by the administration in all respect till now. Then how the administration shall have to administer the public to follow the rules of laws of the land that is vital question and in this case that has been reflected that S.P.I.O. has violated repeatedly the rules and regulations of RTI Act and one should be penalized but their higher authorities are on the same trap for which in respect of RTI Act the people who are trying to get any information from different S.P.I.O.s are not getting any result for which lakhs of applications are pending and if those are disposed several type of misdeeds, corruption and other type of malpractices shall be disclosed for which S.P.I.O.s are placed as frog of the well what in the present case that has been proved.
Anyhow question is whether op sent that report after filing of the complaint or before that. In this regard we have gathered that this complaint was lodged on 03.03.2014 and on 21.04.2014 op appeared but on that date it was not reported that the information as sought for by the complainant has already been supplied by the op. But after taking time on 08.05.2014 op filed the written version and in that written version op has reported that the information as sought for by the complainant had already been given. But peculiarity is that op holding a very highest post of police administration is silent about dispatch of the letter to the complainant or the date of delivery of the letter or service of the same upon the complainant. It indicates that S.P.I.O.s are always shifting their pen for giving the reply against any queries of the public as per RTI Act even they are putting their pen at the time of filing written objection.
Most interesting factor is that in the written objection it is not stated on which date that reply was supplied but after considering the materials it is found that reply was supplied when S.P.I.O. realised that penalty and compensation may be imposed by this Forum. In fact in the written statement date of service of the reply by the op to the complainant is absent. But S.P.I.O. did not write any such answer. Then S.P.I.O. is answerable for what reason he did not mention the date on which date the letter was supplied knowing fully well that was complied after receipt of the complaint. It is our experience that it was detected that during judicial carrier of the President without writing CD reports are being time to time sent to the Court. Whatever it may be the present S.P.I.O. is the model for implementation of the RTI Act and he is an example about the entire democratic right of the people in respect of RTI Act and from the conduct of the op it is proved that people at large are being harassed by the S.P.I.O.s of different departments and present op has taken a leading part in this regard because he is not in a mood to give any reply to the applicant under RTI Act until and unless the case is filed. It is fact that police officers are only controlled by the Court otherwise they are self-controlled, rather they are de-controlled which is proved in this case.
Considering all the above fact and circumstances we have gathered that this S.P.I.O. realized that he shall be penalized by this Forum for which shrewdly he gave answer of the complainant invariably after 08.05.2014 and no doubt such a deal on the part of the S.P.I.O. is condemnable and S.P.I.O. must have to explain for what reason this complainant was compelled to file this complaint before this Forum by spending money and no doubt it is the laches on the part of S.P.I.O. and S.P.I.O. must have to compensate when the complainant got the service after filing of this complaint not before that.
In view of the above findings and also relying upon the judgement passed in RP No. 1975/2005 passed by National Commission we are convinced to hold that complainant as consumer is entitled to such compensation when the complainant was harassed by the present op without any justified reason.
In the result the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and when information has been supplied after filing of this case and invariably after 08.05.2014 and litigation cost shall be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
