Central Information Commission
Nidhi Khare vs Department Of Defence Research & ... on 26 March, 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/DODRD/A/2019/639861
In the matter of:
Nidhi Khare
... Appellant
VS
CPIO AND SC 'F',
Defence Research & Development Organisation,
Chief Construction Engineer (R&D) Estates,
Chandrayanagutta, Keshavagiri Post,
Hyderabad - 500005
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/12/2018 CPIO replied on : 01/01/2019 First appeal filed on : 25/01/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 19/02/2019 Second Appeal Filed on : 05/05/2019 Date of Hearing : 25/03/2021 Date of Decision : 25/03/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri William Paul, Deputy Chief Engineer & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to Shri Ashish Swarup, who has been working in a private organization in Pune and has stayed in DRDO guest house, Pune for the period from 27/06/2014 to 5/07/2014:
1. Whether a private person can book accommodation in DRDO guest house as per booking rules of DRDO guest house.1
2. If a private person cannot book accommodation in the DRDO guest house, provide whether Sh. Ashish Swarup himself has booked the accommodation in DRDO guest house or someone else has booked the accommodation for him.
3. If someone else has booked the accommodation for Shri Ashish Swarup, provide the name of the person who booked the DRDO guest house for Shri Ashish.
4. Provide the actual date of booking of guest house for Shri Ashish Swarup for the stay period starting from 27th June 2014 to 5th July 2014 Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO denied providing the information by quoting Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. She further submitted that she strongly believes that there is some corruption within the organisation as she was not accommodated in the DRDO guest house whereas this facility was permitted to someone else.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 01.01.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission is in agreement with the reply of the CPIO and the order of the FAA and concludes that DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
It is pertinent to quote an observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in W.P(C) 83/2014 where it was held that "...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption"2
Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that-
"...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act".
In view of the above quoted judgments, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged which is not the case here. The appellant could not establish with evidence any corruption charge against the organization other than mentioning that there is corruption.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना 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