Central Information Commission
Mrv Stanley Paulus vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 18 April, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2014/003245/SB
Dated 18.04.2016
Appellant : Shri V. Stanley Paulus
A11, Shalom, Tennis Club Enclave,
Jawahar Nagar, Kowdiar,
Trivandrum695 003.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Intelligence Bureau (M.H.A)
Level5, East Block8,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 09.03.2016/11.04.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.05.2014
CPIO replied on : 04.06.2014
First Appeal filed on : 12.07.2014
FAA's Order on : 14.08.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 15.10.2014
ORDER
1. Shri V. Stanley Paulus filed an application dated 15.09.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bureau 1 of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs seeking information on five points pertaining to Order No. I/CL ACT/FRRO/CH/20137167 dated 25th September, 2013 including (i) whether his office has given any notice as per Section 3 under the Carrier's Liability Act, 2000 to the Airline concerned before making the Order mentioned above and (ii) whether the airline has been given an opportunity for personal hearing to present the case in person as per Section 3 of the Carrier Liability Act at Chennai International Terminal of FRRO Office.
2. The appellant filed second appeal dated 15.10.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the information sought by him has been denied by the CPIO on the plea that the Bureau of Immigration/Intelligence Bureau is exempted from providing any information as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005 Chapter VI, Section 24(1) and Second Schedule and that the FAA upheld the reply of the CPIO. The appellant stated that providing the information sought will not affect the security and integrity of the country necessitating invocation of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and requested the Commission to direct the PIO concerned to provide the information sought by him.
Hearing on 09.03.2016:
3. The appellant vide letter dated 05.03.2016 requested the Commission to postpone the hearing to some other date as he was out of station on the date of hearing.
Interim Decision:
4. The Commission considered the request of the respondent and decided to adjourn the matter to 11.04.2016 at 1:15 pm. Hearing on 11.04.2016:
2
5. The appellant Shri V. Stanley Paulus attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Ms. Geeta Narendra, CPIO and DCIO, FRRO (Foreigners Regional Registration Officer) was present in person.
6. The appellant submitted that he has sought information from FRRO which is working under Bureau of Immigration. Further, Bureau of Immigration is not exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The appellant further submitted that his RTI application was transferred to Intelligence Bureau without informing him under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
7. The respondent submitted that the FRRO is a part of the Bureau of Immigration which functions under the Intelligence Bureau. The respondent further submitted that Intelligence Bureau has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The information sought by the appellant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations, hence, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable in this matter. In view of this information sought cannot be provided to the appellant. The appellant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 04.06.2014. The respondent further submitted that the Commission had in case no. CIC/SS/C/2013/000453/VS/07389 vide order dated 21.07.2014 upheld the transfer of the RTI application from FRRO to the Intelligence Bureau.
Decision:
8. The Commission heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the records. The Commission finds that FRRO is under the administrative control of the Intelligence Bureau which is an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore, observes that in this case information has been sought from an organization to which the RTI Act does not apply as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. 3 Further, the information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Hence, the information cannot be provided to the appellant.
9. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 4