Central Information Commission
Manoj vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 14 February, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/900697
Dated 13.02.2017
Appellant : Shri Manoj,
SSB Office, Near JagdambaVivah Bhawan,
Thana Road, Ghorasahan, Distt. East
Champaran, Bihar-845 303.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Police II Division,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001.
Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General of Sashastra Seema Bal,
East Block-V, R. K Puram,
New Delhi-110 066.
Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.01.2016
CPIO's reply : 03.02.2016/24.02.2016
First appeal filed on : 09.02.2016
FAA's order : 23.02.2016/08.03.2016
Second appeal filed on : 06.03.2016
ORDER
1. ShriManojfiled an application dated 17.01.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs(MHA)seeking information on five pointspertaining to the proposal submitted by Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) to MHA regarding promotional avenues in SSB.The CPIO, MHA vide letter dated CIC/SB/A/2016/900697 Page 1 03.02.2016transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, SSB.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 06.03.2016 before the Commission on the grounds that neither the CPIO, MHA nor the CPIO, SSB provided the requisite information. The appellant further stated that his application was incorrectly and deliberately transferred to SSB as MHA is the custodian of the information sought.
Hearing:
3. The appellantShri Manojattended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondentsShri P.C. Chinhara, Assistant Director, SSB and Shri R.B.S. Negi, Deputy Secretary, MHAwere present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he had, inter-alia, sought information regarding the action taken by the MHA on the proposal sent by the SSB regarding promotional avenues,etc in SSB. However, no information has been provided to him either by the CPIO, MHA or by the CPIO, SSB to him.
5. The respondent (MHA) submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 03.02.2016 that since the matter relates to SSB, the RTI application of the appellant was transferred to SSB under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
6. The respondent (SSB) submitted that on receipt of the RTI application from the CPIO, MHA, the appellant was informed vide letter dated 24.02.2016 that SSB has been exempted as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that the information sought does not relate to either corruption or human rights violation. Hence, information sought cannot be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that since the information sought is regarding a CIC/SB/A/2016/900697 Page 2 proposal sent by SSB to MHA, the same should have been provided by the CPIO MHA. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO, MHA to provide point wise information to the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2016/900697 Page 3