Central Information Commission
Mrsambhu Panigarhi vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 31 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2015/000368/SB
Dated 31.03.2016
Appellant : Shri Sambhu Panigrahi,
At/Po: Defence Colony Phase I, Jagannathpur,
PO. Bhanja Bihar, Brahmapur, PIN 760 007,
Distt. Ganjam, Odisha.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Home Affairs, PP Division, NDCCII
Bhawan, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 31.03.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.09.2014
CPIO's reply : 21.10.2014/29.10.2014
First Appeal : 12.11.2014
FAA's Order : 19.12.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 10.02.2015
ORDER
1
1. Shri Sambhu Panigrahi filed an application dated 16.09.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on six points regarding Zplus Security category, including (i) who are the persons eligible for this category of security along with their designation and addresses, (ii) money spent per month for providing this category of security to the persons concerned and (iii) under whose supervision the SPG Group is working.
2. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 10.02.2015 before the Commission on the ground that he has been wrongly denied information by the CPIO on the ground that the information sought in his RTI application comes under exempted category of Section 8(1)(g) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant has prayed before the Commission that penalty may be imposed and information be provided to him free of cost. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Sambhu Panigrahi was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri R. Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary, VIP Security, MHA was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the information which could have been provided to the appellant has been duly provided vide letter dated 21.10.2014. The respondent further stated that vide the same letter the appellant was also informed that his RTI application has been transferred to the SPG in relation to point no. 3 of the application. The respondent further submitted that the SPG vide letter dated 29.10.2014 has taken exemption under Section 24(1) as it has been included in the list of exempted organisation under Schedule II of the RTI Act and there is no issue of corruption or human rights violations involved in the present case. The respondent also averred that the remaining information sought by the appellant cannot be 2 disclosed as the same is exempted under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no further information remains to be divulged.
Decision:
5. The Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant up to the extent possible has been provided to him by the respondent. The Commission also observes that the SPG has been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act as per Section 24(1) of the Act except in cases of corruption or human rights violations, which are not involved in the present case. Hence, no further information can be provided.
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 3