http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf
Dear Mr Habibullah, In the above order you seem to have overlooked the fact that only a PIO can seek assistance of another officer u/s 5(4)/5(5). In http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-06032009-02.pdf you clearly recorded that the applicant Aftab Ahmed "applied to the PIO, SHO, Thana Paschim Vihar, Delhi" You also recorded "However, he (FAA Rajesh Kumar) took serious note of the failure to respond by the SHO as follows: "The appellant had sent his RTI request sent by the appellant to SHO PS Paschim Vihar because the information sought by him relates to PS Paschim Vihar. In this case, the SHO/ PS Paschim Vihar was required to transfer/forward the said RTI Application to the competent authority i.e. PIO (DCP)/WD immediately along with his reply/ comments on the RTI request, in question and concerned record so that the appellant could be informed in time under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. But, instead of doing so the SHO/ PS Paschim Vihar on 1.9.2007 marked the said RTI request to ASI Ram Phal for necessary action. ASI Ram Phal had also not taken any action on the said RTI request till 1.11.2007 and kept the paper (S) with him unnecessarily for about two months."" After the High Court ticked you off and remanded the case back to you for reconsideration you found "In this case, however, the reference to the then SHO and then ASI can be made by the CPIO, u/s 5 (4) which reads as follows:" Unfortunately your recent decision was drafted by Mr Pankaj Shreyaskar and completely ignores the fact that the SHO Paschim Vihar was not a PIO at any point of time. The Delhi Police PIOs have always been DCPs or Addl CPs (see http://www.delhipolice.nic.in/home/rti/rtipio.pdf) It is clear from your own orders that the PIO DCP/SW never received the RTI application to utilise 5(4). This GROSS INCOMPETENCE is going to lead to another round of litigation in the High Court which shall be paid for by us poor suffering taxpayers as usual. I also hope that you will resolve the long pending penalty matter of SI S.Narinder Singh in http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-29092008-03.pdf and all the connected matters. I need hardly remind you that it is simply not fair that you sit on SI Narinder Singh's penalty matter (in which he is completely innocent and not liable to penalty) where I assisted him simply to shield a Jt. Commissioner of Police Dipender Pathak from penalty especially after Pathak and his brother officer gheraoed your office and threatened to bash up / arrest your staff. I must voice that you may be a very high person but it is unworthy of a gentleman to squeeze the small people like SI Narinder Singh, Sanjiv Tomar, Ram Phal etc to allow their bosses to get away scot free. I must also voice that your pernicious habit of allowing outside interference in your "reserved" decisions behind the backs of the parties is completely corrupt and opposed to the letter and spirit of RTI Act. Yours faithfully Sarbajit Roy
