Central Information Commission
Umesh Chandra Joshi vs Border Road Development Organisation on 8 June, 2017
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Dyc fcfYMax (iksLV vkfQl ds ikl)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
vksYM Tks ,u ;w dSEil, ubZ fnYyh-110067
Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
File No. CIC/AB/A/2016/001744/SD
Date of Decision: 08/06/2017
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Umesh Chandra Joshi
Near Resham Bagh/IMKCG
RTO Road, Kusumkhera
Haldwani, Nainital
Uttarakhand-263139
Respondent : CPIO
Border Road Development
Board Sena Bhawan B Wing
4th Floor, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 04/04/2016
PIO replied on : 29/04/2016
First appeal filed on : 24/05/2016
First Appellate Authority : No order
order
Second Appeal dated : 15/07/2016
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought reasons for not implementing recommendations of Dte. GBR (T&C) Letter No. 18368/6th CPC/DR/DGBR/68/T&C dated 26.04.2010 till date and certified copies of certain letters. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Informed the Commission vide email on 30.05.2017 and 05.06.2017 that due to his ill health, he will not be able to attend the hearing.
Respondent: Rampal Singh, Under Secretary & CPIO, BRDB, Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi present in person.
Appellant in his written statement received via email has claimed that the information pertains to human rights and welfare of approx. 5000 GREF personnel and their families and has prayed for a favourable decision.
CPIO submitted that BRDB is an exempt organisation under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Observation Commission observes that the Appellant is pursuing a service related grievance regarding anomalies in his pay and other benefits arising out of the non- implementation of recommendations of 6th CPC which in effect is also claimed to have affected other personnel who were similarly placed in the establishment.
Decision Border Road Development Board (BRDB) has been placed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Section 24(1) of the Act is reproduced below:
(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:2
File No. CIC/AB/A/2016/001744/SD Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
This has been re-asserted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide it's decision in Civil Appeal No. 6454 arising out of SLP No. 7526/2009 in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case stating:
''Exclusion of the Act in entirety under Section 24 to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule even though they may be "public authorities", (except in regard to information with reference to allegations of corruption and human rights violations)''.
The Right to Information Act 2005 was enacted to bring transparency and accountability in functioning of the Government, both of which help to reduce corruption and increase efficiency in governance. It also encourages people to participate in the functioning of democratic institutions.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Ors v State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2001) 4SCC 534 held as under:
''The golden rule is that the words of the statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning."
The expression ''allegation of corruption'' and ''violation of human rights'' is not defined in the Act. It is thus open for the Commission to decide the veracity of allegations on both counts on a case to case basis. Allegation of corruption and Human Rights violation in this section should be construed to mean verifiable allegations meaning that some charge of corruption or 3 Human Rights violation is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves, such charge in its evidentiary value has strength. Anyone who utters the word 'corruption' or alleges corruption or mentions violation of human rights in view of service related grievance does not become entitled to get information from Public Authorities exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the Appellant.
In view of the above, submission of the CPIO is upheld by the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 4