Central Information Commission
Op Sharma vs Border Road Organisation on 15 January, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BRDOR/A/2022/658212
OP Sharma .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Director Gen Border Roads,
Seema Sadak Bhawan,
Ring Road, Delhi Cantt.
New Delhi - 110010 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09-01-2024
Date of Decision : 12-01-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04-09-2022
CPIO replied on : 16-09-2022
First appeal filed on : 20-09-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 20-10-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31-10-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. How many officers have given interview for the deputation post without the issue of NOC/forwarding of deputation application through proper channel.
2. What action was taken against the officers who have given interview without NOC/ forwarding of deputation application.1
3. Whether officers who were not having NOC at the time of giving interview for the deputation post were allowed to proceed on deputation, if yes how many officers were allowed to proceed on deputation and the provision under which they were relieved."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.09.2022 stating as under:
"It is to inform that BRO being subordinate and executive arm of Border Road Development Board (BRDB), which is included in 2nd Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and thus, is exempted from its operation under Section 24 except the cases of human rights violation and allegation of corruption. Your instant RTI application neither attracts any human right violation nor allegation of corruption.
On perusal of your application, it is observed that you have not sought any specific material information rather answers to hypothetical questions have been asked. As per RTI Act 2005, the Public Information Officer is required to supply the material or information in the form as available and the Act does not cast any obligation upon the public authority to collect or collate or to create any information or answer to any hypothetical questions/queries etc for further furnishing the information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.09.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 20.10.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar, EE (Civil), Nodal Officer & CPIO present in person.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The CPIO submitted that the Respondent office is an exempt organization under Section 24 of the RTI Act and said factual position has already been informed to the Appellant vide their letter dated 16.09.2022. The Respondent further submitted that the FAA vide order dated 20.10.2022 had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.2
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no scope of any relief and is in agreement with the reply of CPIO that the Respondent Public Authority is an exempt organization as per Second Schedule of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Further, the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision of Section 24(1) is reproduced as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--
(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: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:..."
However, the Commission advises the Appellant to pursue his grievance, if any, through appropriate administrative mechanisms.
No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date 12-01-2024 3 Sh. O P Sharma C-22, Motiprayag Colony, Garh Road, Meerut - 250004, Uttar Pradesh.
4