Central Information Commission
Rajeev Sharma vs Internal Security Division on 22 March, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ISDIV/A/2018/633526
Shri Rajeev Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs (IS-II Div., ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Arms Section), MDC National Stadium,
New Delhi -110001
Through: Sh. Ratnesh Kumar Jha - CPIO
Date of Hearing : 22.03.2021
Date of Decision : 22.03.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.11.2017
PIO replied on : 26.12.2017
First Appeal filed on : 30.01.2018
First Appellate Order on : 14.03.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 14.10.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed two RTI applications dated 08.11.2017 seeking information on 11 and 25 points:
1. What is the number licensed fire-arms holder in the Union Territory of Delhi and other Union Territories of India?
2. What is the total number of licenses for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunitions that were issued in the Union Territories of India from the year 2006 to 2016? (Please provide year wise and Union Territory wise distribution of licenses issued)
3. Please provide gender wise distribution of the licensed fire-arms holders in the UTs of India.
4. What was the number (Or percentage of licenses for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunitions that were renewed from the year 2006 to 2016 in the UTs of India?
5. What is the total number of licensed firearms in the UTs of India?
(Since 3 fire-arms can be owned on one license) Page 1 of 3
6. What was the total number of licenses for (PB) prohibited arms and prohibited ammunitions that were is granted between 2006 to 2016 in the UTs of India?
7. What was the number of licenses for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunitions that were issued in the UTs of India from the years 2006 to 2015 without any police report as stated in the proviso to section 13(2A) of Arms Act, 1959?
8. What was the category and total number of arms and ammunitions including prohibited arms that were seized/recovered/captured by the Government officials/ security agencies in the UTs of India from years 2006 to 2016?
9. What was the category and total number of arms and ammunitions that were lost/misplaced/stolen from the Government officials or government stock/store from the years 2006 to 2016 in the UTs of India?
10. What was the number of firearms not bearing identification marks and Country made weapons that were seized/recovered by the government from the year 2006 to 2016 in the UTs of India?
11. What was the number of licenses dealers of arms and ammunitions in the UTs of India?
The CPIO,Ministry of Home Affairs, Delhi furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 26.12.2017 stating that no such records are maintained.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.01.2018. The FAA vide order dated 14.03.2018 upheld the reply of the PIO and observed that with regard to number of licenses issued all over India (year-wise) between 2006 to 2016, no such data is readily available in IS-II Division and information in respect of Arms Act 1959, new Arms rules 2016 and notifications, are available on the Ministry's website (www.mha.gov.in).
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone has appeared for the virtual hearing while the Appellant is absent despite service of hearing notice in advance. Respondent states that in 2017, the Appellant had filed two RTI applications, of which the set of 25 questions had culminated into another Second Appeal being no. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/633525, which had been adjudicated vide order dated 28.08.2020, by this Bench.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
In view of the fact, that the subject matter stands adjudicated already vide the decision dated 26.08.2020 referred to above, no fresh adjudication is warranted in this case.
The matter is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3