BEFORE THE HON’BLE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA
SECOND APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTIONS 18 (1), 19 (3), 19 (8) (b) 20 (1) OF
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005] Dated this the 26th day of August, 2014.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA
Second Appeal No. / 2014
Panikkaveettil K. Jabir
Overseas Indians’ Legal Cell, 5th Floor, Metro Plaza Building, Appellant
Market Road, Near High Court, Kochi, Kerala - Pin.682 018.
v.
1. The State Public Information Officer,
(Sub Inspector of Police),
Guruvayur Police Station,
Guruvayur, Thrissur District,
Kerala State – PIN: 680 101
Respondents
2. The Appellate Authority
(Circle Inspect of of Police),
Guruvayur Police Station, Guruvayur,
Thrissur Dist., Kerala State,
PIN: 680 101
SECOND APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTIONS 18 (1), 19 (3), 19 (8) (b) 20 (1) OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005
The appellant respectfully submits as follows:
1. The appellant is a citizen of India.
2. The appellant submitted an application U/s 6 (1), 6(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005 before the respondent on 03-03-2014, in public interest seeking certain information and documents regarding to an investigation report, that has been submitted before the High Court of Kerala, by the Sub Inspector of Guruvayur Police Station. (A true copy of application is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-1).
3. The appellant is aggrieved by a false reply, Ref.No.11/RIA/d1/14 dated 01-04-2014 received from Respondent No.1 above. (A true copy of the same is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-2.) The 1st respondent has stated without any hesitation that “The damage caused by termites and ants, the files containing the final report before 2010 were totally damaged”.
The gist of his reply is reproduced below for ready reference.
“……. On examining the FIR Index in respect of the case for furnishing the information requested by you, it was found that the said case was submitted before the JFCM, Chavakkad on 31-05-09 as FR, MF. The files of final report have not been properly kept. Due to the inconvenience in the file room and damage caused by termites and ants the file containing the final report before 2010 were totally damaged. Copy of the FIR Index is submitted herewith”.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the statement of the 1st respondent, Sub Inspector of Guruvayur Police, is false, irresponsible in nature and against facts.
5. The dreadful silence of the 2nd respondent, who is holding a responsible and revered position of the Appellate Authority, under the Kerala Police Department is causing great mental shock to the appellant as well as a disgrace to the Kerala Police Department, which always proclaims its prime objective: “to serve and to protect”.
6. It is further submitted that the reply is, in fact, the outcome of a conspiracy, fraudulent and corrupt and has been deliberately fabricated to conceal the real facts and to protect a culprit, who is the person accused of committing fraud and embezzling more than 30 crore (INR) belonging to the appellant.
7. The case was investigated by the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor. Due to the unusual delay on investigation, the appellant filed a Writ Petition [WP (C) No.15905 of 2009] against the investigation of the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor, in the High Court of Kerala for directing the CBI or any other official Agency to investigate the Crime.
8. The Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor, after a period of one year, has submitted his investigation report of the case as ‘Mistake of Fact’.
9. The investigation report contains patent and palpable errors. It was stated that, the appellant was punished for a term of one year in Abu Dhabi and after the term of punishment, he was deported to India. The investigation report concludes that the appellant concern’s, the ‘Ramla Electro-Mechanical Est’., does not belong to the appellant and the license holder is Mr. Isa Ahmed Jafar of Abu Dhabi.
10. The report is vitiated by the corruption on the part of the police official who had investigated the matter viz., Sub Inspectors Mr. M. Surendran and Mr. Premjith. Had they relied up on facts and the relevant records including the true copies of legal judgments made available before them by the appellant, the appellant could have received appropriate legal remedies and the accused, who is still remains at large with the assets belonging to the appellant, found his place behind the bars. The manipulations of the power of these corrupt police officials have caused heavy mental torture to the appellant, loss of his assets as well as defame and infringement of his dignity.
11. Further proceedings are contemplated against these officials, who took a false stand camouflaged by the influence of the accused and his allies. It is submitted that the police officials who handled the appellant’s case are guilty of grave corruption and deliberate abuse of the official position.
12. The background of the case is briefly indicated in paragraphs 6 to 15 of the 1st appeal, for facilitating an effective disposal of the appeal and for initiating appropriate and stringent action against the member(s) of the disciplined force in the State of Kerala. [A true copy of the 1st appeal dated 14-05-2014 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-3]
G r o u n d s
A. The records in a police station constitute basic and vital information, for a citizen. That valuable right cannot be defeated by the officials by putting forward false pleas like ‘damaged by termites or ants’.
B. The Police Station and the Record Room, is subjected to the handling of officials every day, and in an official way. Consequently, a plea as put forward in the order cannot be sustained at all.
C. It is submitted that the Hon’ble State Information Commission may be pleased to visit the Police Station concerned and verify the records kept therein, and take such action as is necessary to verify the correctness of the artificial and extra-ordinary plea of damage of records by ‘ants and termites’.
D. Such an excuse cannot be put forward by a responsible officer of the police station. They are, therefore, to be ignored by the Commission. The officials concerned have to be held guilty for suppression of the information and offence punishable under the RTI Act.
E. The actions and omissions on the part of the Sub Inspector are punishable under Section 218 and 219 of the IPC. Section 218 - Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture; Section 219 - Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law.
F. The actions also violate the agreement between “INDIA-UAE on Juridical and Judicial Cooperation” & “The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 (VCCR)” – Done at Vienna, Austria on 24 April 1963.
G. The appellant has not received correct and accurate information sought in the application from the respondent and there was neither a reply nor even an acknowledgment till date from the Appellate Authority. The statutory period of 60 days for furnishing the information is over. The information sought by the appellant is of purely of public interest in nature and it is held and controlled by the respondent. The respondent has easy access to all the information sought by the appellant. The respondent has deliberately denied the information.
H. The appellant is aggrieved by the inaction and also dereliction of duty by the Respondent. The appellant herein is denied the access to valuable information which would cause great harm, severe injury, and irreparable loss to him. Disclosure of this information will not lead to any genuine loss and hardships to anyone.
I. The inaction and refusal on the part of the respondent in not furnishing the information sought by the appellant is highly arbitrary and illegal.
Prayer
Therefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble State Chief Information Commissioner may be pleased to pass:
a) An order directing the respondent to furnish relevant and exact information to all the questions asked in the Annexure No. 1 application with certified copies of relevant documents.
b) An order of enquiry and also to initiate appropriate and necessary disciplinary action and other proceedings against the respondent in not providing the information sought for by the appellant, and also into his irresponsible and illegal action leading to the issuance of an evasive reply to the appellant vide his letter dated 01-04-2014, which, inter alia reads “……Due to the inconvenience in the file room and damage caused by termites and ants the file containing the final report before 2010 were totally damaged”.
c) The appellant may kindly be exempted from payment of any fee under the Right to Information Act.
d) Impose penalty upon the respondents’ u/s 20 of the RTI Act.
e) Recommend disciplinary action against the respondents under the RTI Act.
All the facts stated above are true and correct
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2014
APPELLANT
Annexures
1. True copy of the application dated 03-03-2014 submitted by the appellant (2 pages)
2. True copy of the letter Ref.No.11/RIA/d1/14 dated 01-04-2014, received from the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayur Police Station (In Malayalam 1 page)
3. Copy of the 1st Appeal dated 14-05-2014 filed before the 2nd Respondent (6 pages)
4. Originals of Speed Post receipts issued by the High Court Post Office, Kochi, for copies of the 2nd appeal to the 1st and 2nd Respondents dated 26-08-2014 (1 page).
VERIFICATION
I, Panikkaveettil K. Jabir, S/o P.K. Moideenkutty, aged 54 years, Overseas Indians’ Legal Cell, 5th Floor, Metro Plaza Building, Market Road, Near High Court, Kochi, Kerala, Pin: 682018, do hereby declare that all whatever stated above are true and correct.
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2014
APPELLANT
***
