Central Information Commission
Mahesh Kumar Saini vs Indian Army on 11 June, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2019/140157
In the matter of:
Mahesh Kumar Saini
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Headquarters, Chief Engineer, Project Himank,
Pin- 931710 C/O 56 APO
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 29/05/2019 CPIO replied on : 11/06/2019 First appeal filed on : 21/06/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 23/07/2019 Second Appeal Filed on : 07/08/2019 Date of Hearing : 10/06/2021 Date of Decision : 10/06/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Col S.K Shukla, CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. How much bus fare had been paid for each bus plying from HAD COY, HIMANK (Chandigarh) to Leh (year 2010-2018).
2. Provide the certified copies of terms and conditions of the Agreement/MoU made for hiring of buses from HAD COY, HIMANK (Chandigarh) to Leh (year 2010-2019).
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information claiming exemption u/s 24 of the RTI Act.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply and the information sought is related to corruption.
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given vide letter dated 11.06.2019.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO had denied the information stating that the public authority is exempted under the RTI Act as per Sec 24. The FAA further in his order mentioned that the appellant had failed to substantiate a case of corruption or human rights violation, therefore no information can be given.
It is relevant to mention here that Border Road Development Board (BRDB) has been placed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
The status of General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) and Border Roads Organisation (BRO) in relation to BRDB has been clarified by Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways (BRDB) vide their I.D Note No.F.06/280/BRDB/ADMN-2005 dated 02.03.2006 and Memo No. BRDB/03/199/GE-1, dated 08.09.2009 that "the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) is an executive arm of Border Road Development Board and is part of it.
Therefore, RTI Act does not apply to BRO except in cases of corruption and human rights violation, as specified in the Act" and that "BRO draws its work force from two streams i.e Army and Civil. The personnel from Civil stream are called as General Reserve Engineer Force (popularly known as GREF). The officers and subordinates from the Army are posted to BRO on Extra Regimental Employment (ERE) tenure for a period of two and half to three years."
In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the BRO and GREF. Section 24(1) of the Act is reproduced below:
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being 2 organisations 2 established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this subsection: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty five days from the date of the receipt of request.
This has been re-asserted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its decision in Civil Appeal No. 6454 arising out of SLP No. 7526/2009 in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case stating:
''Exclusion of the Act in entirety under Section 24 to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule even though they may be "public authorities", (except in regard to information with reference to allegations of corruption and human rights violations)''.
Decision:
In view of the above and the submissions of the CPIO, the reply provided by the respondent is upheld by the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date
3