Central Information Commission
Mrv Singh vs Sashastra Seema Bal, on 29 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2015/900183/SB
Dated 29.03.2016
Appellant : Shri V. Singh,
A115, Ganesh Nagar,
New Delhi110 018.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General of Sashastra Seema Bal, East
BlockV, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi110 066.
Date of Hearing : 29.03.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.11.2014
CPIO's reply : 03.12.2014
First Appeal : 04.12.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 07.01.2015
ORDER
1. Shri V. Singh filed an application dated 27.11.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) seeking information on six points regarding unclaimed arms and ammunitions, including
(i) list of seized and unclaimed recovered arms/weapons since 2005, (ii) no. of times the list of 1 unclaimed arms has been sent to the MHA since 2005 and whether these unclaimed weapons are deposited with the local police along with the history sheet and (iii) rank of the officers who are in possession of arms licenses and have unclaimed arms on their licenses along with purchase value of the unclaimed arms.
2. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 07.01.2015 before the Commission on the ground that the PIO should be directed to provide information in public interest. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri V. Singh and the respondent Shri Chanchal Shekhar, DIG, SSB and CPIO was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him and the same has been wrongly denied taking exemption under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought cannot be provided as the SSB has been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act as per Section 24(1) of the Act except in cases of corruption and human rights violations, which are not involved in the present case. However, the respondent apprised the Commission that whenever the SSB personnel seizes a weapon, the same is handed over to the local Police which then takes further action in the matter as per the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959.
Decision:
6. The Commission observes that in this case information has been sought from an organization i.e. SSB to which the RTI Act does not apply as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. 2 Further, the information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Hence, information cannot be provided to the appellant.
7. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 3