Central Information Commission
Mukesh Chandra Bhatt vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police on 2 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000615
Dated 01.06.2017
Appellant : Shri Mukesh Chandra Bhatt,
Vill. Rewari, Ghasiya Mahadev,
Near Chamola Bhawan, Srinagar Garhwal,
Disttt. Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand-246174.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
O/o the Commandant, 8th Battalion, Indo
Tibetan Border Police Force, Post Gochar,
Distt. Chamoli, Uttarakhand.
Date of Hearing : 01.06.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application : 26.10.2015
CPIO's reply : 02.11.2015/14.12.2015
First appeal : 27.11.2015/12.01.2016
FAA's order : 04.02.2016
Second Appeal : 19.03.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), 8th Bn Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) Chamoli, Uttarakhand seeking information on eleven points regarding the action taken against one Shri Rakesh Lal after he was fined Rs. 5,000/- by the Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar Garhwal under Section 60 of the Excise Act.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC), Uttarakhand, on the grounds that the information sought has been wrongly denied by the CPIO under Section 24 of the RTI Act. The second appeal was transferred by the SIC to the CIC. The appellant Page 1 requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Ajay Prakash, Assistant Commandant, ITBP, Chamoli attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 14.12.2015 that ITBP has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information sought by the appellant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. In view of this, the information sought cannot be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes 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 allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Hence, information cannot be provided to the appellant.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page 2