Central Information Commission
Raghu S. vs Central Industrial Security Force on 19 September, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CISFO/A/2023/137652
Shri RAGHU S. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Central Industrial Security Force
Date of Hearing : 17.09.2024
Date of Decision : 17.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.04.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 26.06.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 05.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Certified Copies of list of Officers/Personnel of CISF trained in Bengaluru International Airport to provide assistance on rule book /declaration forms for carrying Aircraft test equipment in Hand Baggage & Check-In Baggage issued to Airlines operating in India by CISF, along with file notings."
Dissatisfied with the non- receipt received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 30.08.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
The above information / documents were highly sensitive / important in nature and also does not fall within the domain of RTI Act-2005.
Page 1 Moreover, the CISF being an Armed Force of the Union is exempted from providing information except for the cases of 'Corruption' & 'Human Rights violation', the documents were not supplied to the appellant and the decision of the CPIO, quoting the provisions of Section-24 of RTI Act-2005 was communicated vide letter No. (2072) dated 29.04.2023 to the applicant at his postal address as mentioned in his RTIs, through register post. Also, a copy of this letter was marked to the CPIO & Chief Postmaster, Bangalore GPO-560001 for information. But the envelope addressed to the appellant had redirected by the postal authority due to insufficient address. As the appellant had not received any reply towards his RTIs dated 24.04.2023 from the CPIO/CASO, he preferred his 06 appeal petitions dated 23.06.2023 under RTI-2005 and 1st appellate authority i.e. IG/APS-II and the same was disposed off in the light of the provisions of Section-24 of RTI Act-2005 and did not supply / share the required documents / information to the appellant vide letter No. (5824) dated 20.07.2023 enclosing the copy of CPIO's letter dated 29.04.2023.
The appellant again forwarded a copy of his earlier message / RTI appeal dated 23.06.2023 to CISF FHQrs New Delhi. In response to FHQrs letter No. (3894) dated 13.09.2023, 1st appellate authority vide letter No. (7618) dated 15.09.2023 apprised the FHQrs with a copy to Shri Raghu S, mentioning that these appeals have already been disposed off by the First Appellate Authority i.e. IG/APS-2 vide letter No. 5824 dated 20.07.2023 and the same was delivered to him on 22.07.2023 as per India Post track consignment Number RK752766278ΙΝ.
In view of the forgoing submissions, it is respectfully submitted that the requests of the appellant were against the provisions of RTI Act- 2005 and the same have already been disposed off by the CPIO as well as the appellate authority vide letter No. (2072) dated 29.04.2023 & No. (5824) dated 20.07.2023 respectively. Also, a copy of letter No. 5824 dated 20.07.2023 was delivered to the appellant on 22.07.2023 and by which he is well aware about the decision of the CISF. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever and hence, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed in- limine please.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Manjunath H, Dy. Inspector General- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information sought in the instant RTI Application has not been furnished by the PIO. He stated that the information sought relates to the policy decision and same should made available in the public domain on the official website of CISF. He stated that the information sought is general in nature and the exemption under section 24 of the RTI Act Page 2 does not apply in the instant case. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the by virtue of provision contained in Section-24 read with Second Schedule of RTI Act-2005, the information sought for by the Appellant, cannot be provided since the CISF is an organization listed in Second Schedule of Right to Information Act 2005, being an Armed Force of Union is exempted from providing information except the one that relates to cases of corruption & human rights violation. He averred that the information sought by the Appellant does not fall under either of the two aforementioned categories. He further apprised the Commission that the records sought by the Appellant are sensitive in nature and cannot be furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission, copy of CPIO's and copy of FAA's order, along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing the submissions of both parties it is evident that the Respondent had sent an appropriate reply in terms of the provision of the RTI Act. Commission observes that the CISF is an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and, accordingly, under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the CISF is exempt from the rigours of the RTI Act. Commission notes that there is no material on record to show that there was any corruption or violation of human rights so as to bring the case of the Appellant within the ambit of the Proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)