PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION

Case No. UDR.2/2007

Dated 12-02-2008

Name of the Complainant:
Sri Monu Daimari
S/o. Norfin Daimary,Vill. Ambagaon,
P.O. Bornagaon via Udalguri

Name of the Public Authority / SPIO:
Superintendent of Police, Udalguri

The following were present

  1. Dr. Sadique Ali Ahmed, SDPO, Udalguri -Public Authority

The complainant absent without step. The Superintendent of Police, Udalguri absent without step. The SDPO, Udalguri appeared before the Commission. As the case is a matter of records and the SDPO, Udalguri produced records the Commission decided to hear the case ex-parte.

Brief of the case
On 17.12.07 a petition was received from Shri Monu Daimari, son of Shri Narfin Daimari of village Ambagaon of Udalguri Police Station in which he stated that on 6.10.07 he sent an application under the RTI Act to the SPIO of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Udalguri by a registered post but till date he was not furnished any information on the points raised by him. The information sought by him were as follows:

  1. On 16.8.07 the complainant submitted an ejahar to the Udalguri Police Station in which he named (1) Gulapi Daimari (2) Sambar Daimari & (3) Anil Daimari as accused for offences under section 381/494/506/34 of IPC and he wanted to know whether FIR was registered and if so FIR registration No.
  2. Whether the accused were arrested, if so, on which date and in case the accused were not arrested the reason thereof?
  3. A copy of the FIR entitled to him under section 154 Cr.P.C.
  4. Reasons for not registration of the FIR if the same was not registered yet.
  5. It is the duty of the O.C of the thana to register FIRs. In case the FIR was not registered who was responsible for violating the law by not registering the FIR?

The Commission decided to register this application as a complaint case under section 18(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 and issued notice to the S.P. Udalguri asking him to appear at the Commission office along with designated SPIO if any of his office on 12.2.08 with all details / records concerning the complaint. It was also clearly stated in the notice that failure to comply with this notice will result in initiating summons proceedings under section 18(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence this case.

Submission of the Public Authority
Dr. Sadique Ali Ahmed, SDPO, Udalguri appeared before the Commission in this case and produced a copy of the order dated 11.2.08 in which the S.P. Udalguri district nominated him as designated State Public Information Officer of the SP's Office Udalguri. He submitted verbally that that the SP was not well and hence could not appear before the Commission. He however stated that he was aware of the case and could explain the matter.

He stated that the complainant Sri Monu Daimari did not lodge any complaint / ejahar etc. at Udalguri Police Station against Smt Gulapi Daimari, Sri Sambar Daimari & Sri Anil Daimari as mentioned in his application dated 6.10.07 under the RTI Act, 2005. However when contacted the complainant informed the police that actually during the month of August 2007 he came to the Udalguri Police Station to contact O.C Sri B.C. Bhuyan for lodging a complaint but the O.C Shri Bhuyan on that day was outside the police station campus on moffusil. So he left the police station and did not submit the application to the Police Station at Udalguri.

However the complainant lodged a written complaint through the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Udalguri on 18.11.06and on receipt of the said complaint a case (Udalguri Police Station Case NO 104/06 under section 389/500/34 IPC) was registered and the O.C. Shri Bhuyan duly investigated the case and the case was returned in FR as sufficient evidences could not be established against the accused persons. The FR was submitted to the SDJM, Udalguri Court with intimation to Sri Manu Daimari about the result of investigation of the case.

The SDPO stated that prior to registration of Udalguri Police Station case No 104/06 another case Udalguri Police Station Case No. 102/06 under section 376/120(B)/109/323/493/34 IPC was registered against the accused Sri Monu Daimari and his family members which was duly investigated by Sri B.C. Bhuyan, O.C. Udalguri Police Station and after due investigation the I/O arrested the accused Shri Daimari after collection of sufficient evidences while two other accused surrendered before the District and Session Judge Court at Mangaldoi. That case has been charged in the court and is pending trial.

The SDPO stated that on 8.2.08 he sent a reply to Sri Daimari the complainant in this case under the RTI Act in which he stated that no complaint in question was lodged by him till that date and hence the Police Station did not get any scope to put his complaint in lawful motion. Hence the information might be treated as nil. The SDPO further stated that in the said letter he also informed the complainant that the compliant dated 18.11.06 as lodged by the complainant against Golapi Daimari and others was registered as Udalguri P.S. Case No.104/06 under section 389/500/34 IPC and after due investigation the O.C Shri Bhuyan submitted FR in view of the insufficient evidences against the accused persons.

The SDPO also stated that the office of the SP, Udalguri received the petition of the complainant under the RTI Act only on 17.10.07 and the reply was sent on 8.2.08.

Observation of the Commission
The Commission observed that even on receipt of the notice for appearance before the Commission today the S.P, Udalguri district did not care to attend the same nor did he send any prayer for adjournment of the hearing. This showed reluctance on the part of the S.P. Udalguri in properly implementing the RTI Act. The Commission issued notices to the S.P to appear before the Commission along with the designated SPIO of his office on 12.2.08 with all details / records concerning the complainant. It is a normal format used by the Commission in sending notice to the public authorities who are not SPIOs. In this case the Police Headquarters had already notified all the S.Ps of the state as the SPIO of their respective offices and as such the S.P. Udalguri being the SPIO of his office should have been present before the Commission for the hearing. Instead he issued an order on 8.2.08 nominating Dr. Ali Ahmed. SDPO, Udalguri as the SPIO of his office which runs counter to the order of the Police Headquarters. This order of the SP was beyond jurisdiction and passed in defiance of the order of the DGP Assam. The Commission considered this irrelevant.

From the statement of the SDPO, Udalguri it transpired that the application of the complainant dated 6.10.07 was received by the office of the SP Udlaguri on 17.10.07 and he sent a reply on 8.2.08. Taking 17.10.07 as the date of receipt of the application of the complainant for information under the RTI Act, the SP Udalguri should have sent the information within 30 days i.e. by 16.11.07. Thus there was a clear delay of 114 days in furnishing information to the complainant.

The Commission found that the information sought for was available completely in Udalguri Police Station and was very simple in nature and it should not have taken more than 30 days to furnish it to the complainant. Thus the Commission was of the view that the SP Udalguri did not care to pay any attention to the application of the complainant filed under the RTI Act and the records also did not show any endeavor on the part of the SP, Udalguri to attend to the application as the SPIO of his office as required under section 7 of the RTI Act. Hence the Commission was of the view that the SP, Udalguri as the SPIO of his office failed to send information to the complainant within the stipulated time of 30 days and was liable to be punished under section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

Decision of the Commission
On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the Commission decided under section 19(8)(a) of the RTI Act 2005 as follows:
  1. to direct the S.P. Udalguri to cancel the order dated 11.2.08 nominating Dr. Sadique Ali Ahmed as SPIO of the office of the S.P. Udalguri forthwith and instead notify him as the ASPIO of his office if he so desires,
  2. to impose penalty under section 20(1) of the Act at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day upto a maximum of Rs. 25,000/- on the S.P. Udalguri as he has violated the section 7(1) of the RTI Act. However in the interest of giving him reasonable opportunity to explain his case the Commission decided to give him opportunity to present his case by personally appearing before the Commission on the next date fixed and submit a written explanation as to why the order of imposition of penalty on him should not be executed and the amount is not realized from him.
  3. the Commission fixed 15.3.08 at 11.30 A.M. as the date for hearing the S.P. Udalguri
  4. the Commission also decided to issue summons to the S.P. Udalguri for his appearance on the date fixed.
Sd/- (R.S. Mooshahary)
Chief Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.


Sd/ (Dr. B K Gohain)
State Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.

Authenticated true copy

(Jiauddin Ahmed)
Secretary, State Information Commission, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.

Memo No.SIC UDR.2/2007 Dated February 12, 2008

CC:

  1. The Superintendent of Police, Udalguri, district Udalguri,
  2. Dr. Sadique Ali Ahmed, SDPO, Udalguri, district Udalguri,
  3. Shri Monu Daimari, Son of Norfin Daimari, Village- Ambagaon, P.O. Bornagaon via Udalguri.
  4. The DIPR, Dispur, Guwahati.
  5. MD, AMTRON, Bamunimaidan
  6. Office file.
Secretary
State Information Commission, Assam