Central Information Commission
Mrsat Pal vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 25 January, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001417/SB/
Dated: 25.01.2016
Complainant : Shri Sat Pal,
DIG, NE Frontier HQ
ITB Police, Old AP Govt. Secretariat
Shillong, Meghalaya
PIN 793001
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General,
Indo Tibetan Border Police Force
MHA, CGO Complex, Block 2
Lodhi Road, New Delhi110003
Date of Hearing : 25.01.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2013
CPIO replied on : 23.08.2013
First Appeal filed on : 29.08.2013
First Appellate Authority Order on : 16.09.2013
Second Appeal filed on : 25.03.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Sat Pal filed an application dated 13.07.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate General, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, New Delhi seeking information on six points regarding prosecution sanction issued against him, including (i) date on which charge sheet along with the documents was received in the Ministry from ITBP, (ii) details of the complainant of the case and on what basis CBI registered the case against the appellant and copy of the complaint, and (iii) details of formalities observed by ITBP under ITBP Act before handing over the case to the CBI, and (iv) copies of relevant orders and note sheets, etc.,
2. The appellant filed second appeal with the Commission on 25.03.2014 on the ground that CPIO denied the information under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and the FAA denied the information under 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to give directions to the CPIO to provide the information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Satpal attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent ITBP was not present despite notice.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him in response to his RTI application dated 13.07.2013 on the ground that ITBP has been put at Second Schedule to the Right of Information Act, 2005. Hence, as per provisions of Section 24 of RTI Act, ITBP is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. However, the appellant submitted that the matter relates to allegations of corruption in ITBP. Hence, as per proviso to Section 24(1| of the RTI Act, information sought by him should be provided.
5. The respondent ITBP in their written submissions dated 21.01.2016 has stated that the second appeal dated 25.03.2014 has not been received in that office due to which it is difficult to ascertain as to what matter has been taken up by the appellant before the Commission. The respondent has, therefore, requested that copy of 2nd appeal dated 25.03.2014 may kindly be provided to ITBP to enable them to make appropriate submissions.
6. The Commission perused the written submissions of the respondent. The Commission observes that inspite of instructions in para 2 of the notice of the hearing dated 04.01.2016, the appellant has failed to provide a copy of the second appeal to the respondent, with the result that the respondent has not been able to submit written submissions based on merits. The Commission, therefore, directs the appellant to provide a copy of the second appeal to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission. The matter is adjourned to 29.02.2016 at 1.30 p.m.
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer