Central Information Commission
Mrprem Nath vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police on 3 August, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2015/001334/SB
Dated 03.08.2016
Appellant : Shri Prem Nath,
S/o Shri Bachitar Ram,
Vill. Laswara, Post Office -Deoli,
Tehsil Bishnah,
Distt. Jammu181132.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
O/o Commandant 24th Battalion,
Indo Tibetan Border Police Force,
C/o 56 A.P.O.
Date of Hearing : 03.08.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.01.2015
CPIO's reply : 17.02.2015
First Appeal filed on : 09.03.2015
Second appeal filed on : 18.05.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Prem Nath filed an application dated 12.01.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Commanding 1 Officer, I.T.B.P. (24th Bn), Leh seeking information on three points relating to his appointment as a Motor Mechanic in 24th Bn. ITBP, Leh for a period of more than five years.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on 18.05.2015 on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the information on the grounds of ITBP being an exempted organization under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 and that the First Appellate Authority did not respond to his appeal.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Prem Nath attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Arvind Kumar, Assistant Commandant, ITBP was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him in response to his RTI application dated 12.01.2015 on the grounds that ITBP has been exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent submitted that as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, ITBP is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Therefore, information has been denied to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission observes that in this case information has been sought from ITBP, an organization to which the RTI Act does not apply as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Further, the information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations by the officers of ITBP. Hence, information cannot be provided to the appellant. 2
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 3