Central Information Commission
Mrharish Bajaj vs Central Reserve Police Force on 10 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/002554/SB
Dated 10.02.2016
Appellant : Shri Harish Bajaj,
LIG 2, Ratan Lal Nagar
Kanpur208022
U.P.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Central Reserve Police Force,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 10.02.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.03.2014
CPIO's reply : 05.05.2014
First Appeal filed on : 22.05.2014
FAA's order : 11.06.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 22.07.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Harish Bajaj filed an application dated 18.03.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Director General Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) seeking information on ten points pertaining to the order of bullet proof jackets vide letter no. UII794/0910proc. Misc dated 27.04.2010, including (i) the weight of each components as tendered and the total weight of the jacket supplied by the MKU Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the firm"); (ii) the weight of 3 extra layers as permitted by MHA; and (iii) whether the weight of the jackets supplied with 3 layers exceed the specified weight; quantity of the bullet proof jackets supplied by the firm prior to 31.05.2011; etc.
2. The appellant filed second appeal on 22.07.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO and the FAA wrongly denied the information under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO concerned to provide the information sought by him as it would disclose the corrupt practice adopted by the private company.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Harish Bajaj and the respondent Shri B.P. Singh, DIGP, CRPF were present in person during the hearing.
4. The appellant submitted that the information has been wrongly denied to him both by the CPIO and the FAA on the ground of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant further submitted that the information sought by him would disclose the corrupt practices of the firm.
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided as the same relates to operational matter of the CRPF and that as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act the CRPF has been exempted from providing any information other than that pertaining to human rights violation or corruption.
Decision:
6. The Commission agrees with the submissions of the respondent 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 corruption and human rights violations. The Commission further observes that the appellant has alleged that corruption took place in the supplies of the bullet proof jackets, however, no cogent and substantial evidence was placed before the Commission to establish the charge of corruption. Hence, information sought 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