Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

K R Sashi Kanthan vs Ministry Of Shipping on 2 May, 2017

                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                      Club Building (Near Post Office)
                    Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
                      Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
                        Email - [email protected]

                                       File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/002781/SD
                                              Date of Decision :02/05/2017
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                   :    K R Sashi Kanthan
                                 12-4-7, Sri Sashta Nagar I
                                 Mukakathan.S Alankulam
                                 Madurai - 625017 TN
Respondent                  :    CPIO
                                 Border Road Development Board
                                 B - Wing, 4th Floor
                                 Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011
RTI application filed on    :    02/09/2014
PIO replied on              :    21/10/2014
First appeal filed on       :    01/12/2014
First Appellate Authority   :    12/12/2014
order
Second Appeal dated         :    01/01/2015

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA

Information sought

:

The Appellant sought information through 8 points in regard to the DPC held on 16.03.2011 for promotion from AE(CW) to AEE (CW) for the vacancy year 2009-2010, in which he was declared unfit.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
1
Respondent: Rampal Singh, Under Secretary & CPIO, BRDB, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi present in person.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO.
CPIO submitted that information sought pertained to service matters and the Appellant has been informed that BRO (BRDB) is an exempt organisation under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Decision 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 organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
2
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/002781/SD Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
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.
Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3