Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Udai Pratap Yadav vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 17 November, 2020

                                  के ीयसूचनाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                               बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/170807

Shri Udai Pratap Yadav                                        ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs
(IS-II Division), Room No. 8,
2nd Floor, VIP Security Unit,
MDC National Stadium, New Delhi-110 001                   ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Sh. Rajendra Chaturvedi - Dir. VS

Date of Hearing                       :   12.11.2020
Date of Decision                      :   13.11.2020
Information Commissioner             :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  Case No.   RTI Filed on   CPIO reply     First appeal        FAO       Second
                                                                          Appeal
   170807    12.09.2017          -        30.07.2018             -      04.12.2018

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2017 seeking information on 13 points, some of which have been reproduced hereunder:

Etc. Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 30.07.2018 and the same also remained non adjudicated.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Written submission dated 23.10.2020 has been received from Section Officer, VIP Security Unit stating that response dated 19.02.2018 to the RTI application had been sent to the Appellant, copy whereof has been enclosed with the submissions. Relevant extract of the reply is as under:

"...the responsibility for providing security to an individual, lies primarily with State Government/Union Territory concerned in whose jurisdiction such individual is ordinarily resident or happens to be. State Government have their own mechanism for assessing threat, providing security and reviewing security. However, Central Government too provides security to individuals, on the basis of 'assessment-of-threat' carried out by Central Security Agencies. On the basis of their threat assessment category security i.e. Z+, Z, Y+, Y & X cover may be provided. The categorized security to any threatened person is periodically reviewed and accordingly security provided is withdrawn/upgraded/ downgraded/continued. Hence the number of protectees is-not static and varies overtime. The details in this regard, including name/details of protectees, documents related to provision of security, inputs received from Central Security Agencies etc. are exempted under Section 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j)and Chapter VI, Section 24(1) and Second Schedule, of the RTI Act 2005."

The Respondent further stated that the First Appeal was sent to Pers-1, MHA vide OM dated 13.08.2018 and the Appellant was informed vide letter dated 16.08.2018, in the following manner:

On points 1-5 and 11-13 The subject matter is related to Police-II Division and IS-II Division, MHA. The RTI application is forwarded to those Divisions for providing the information directly On point 6 The subject matter is related to IS-II Division, MHA. The RTI application is forwarded to that Divisions for providing the information directly On points 7-10 You have not sought any specific information, as available in the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereas you have raised question and sought legal opinion/views of the public authority. It is informed that such request do not come under the definition of information specified under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005.

An office memorandum dated November 2020 is also found on record sent by Sh. Ratnesh Kumar Jha - OSD(IS-I) Division, Arms Section & CPIO stating that point no. 6 of the RTI application had been responded by their Division vide letter dated 09.02.2018.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing is held through audio conference, scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and both parties place reliance on the facts as already discussed above.

Decision:

Examination of the facts of the case reveal that Respondent had provided replies dated 19.02.2018 and 13.08.2018 answering the queries of the Appellant. The Appellant is silent about not having submitted the replies alongwith the Second Appeal and also about the cause of his dissatisfaction with the replies. The Appellant has not established as to how disclosure of information is of overwhelming importance in this case and/or will serve the larger public interest. Thus, the Commission finds no reason to interfere with the Respondent's views.

The appeal is disposed off as such.

Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 3 of 3