Central Information Commission
Mrarun vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 9 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/002411/SB
Dated 09.02.2016
Appellant : Shri Arun,
S/o Shri Om Parkash,
VPO Barota, Tehsil Gohana,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
O/o the Dy. Inspector General,
Central Industrial Security Force
South Zone, DBlock,
Rajaji Bhawan,
Besant Nagar, Chennai.
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2014
CPIO's reply : 16.06.2014
First Appeal filed on : 24.06.2014
FAA's order : 14.07.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 22.07.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Arun filed an application dated 01.06.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), D.I.G. Hqr. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) New Delhi seeking information on twenty nine points pertaining to investigation in FIR No. 434/12 under Section 365 IPC, P.S. Alipur, Delhi for illegal stay of his wife in the family married quarters of CISF with ASI Pawan Kumar including (i) under which law CISF has allowed his wife to stay with the CISF employee in the married family quarters complex (ii) provide photo copy of the documents on the basis of which the concerned quarter was allotted to the individual, (iii) reasons for not carrying out checks thereby resulting in both of them staying together in the CISF quarters (iv) under which law a lady can stay in the CISF married quarters without furnishing any proof and (v) name of the officer who was responsible for not checking whether the official who has been allotted the quarter is staying with his family or someone else.
2. The appellant filed second appeal dated 22.07.2014 before the Commission on the ground that information has been denied in total disregard of the CISF Rules, taking shelter under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 and that the information sought by him does not pertain to either human rights violation or corruption. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO concerned to provide the information as sought by him Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Arun was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Hardeep Singh, DIG, CISF attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted that CISF has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, information sought by the appellant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. In view of this information sought cannot be provided to the appellant. Decision:
5. The Commission 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. Further, the information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Hence, information cannot be provided to the appellant.
6. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.
(V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer