Central Information Commission
Mranil Kumar Upadhyay vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 9 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/002538/SB
Dated 09.02.2016
Appellant : Shri Anil Kumar Upadhyay,
S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay
Ashok Sadan, Near Sisa Factory,
Gausganj, Gangi,
Post - H.P.O. Arrah,
Distt. Bhojpur, Bihar802 301.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
O/o the Inspector General, FHQ,
Sashastra Seema Bal,
Nikita Complex, GS Road,
Khanapara, Guwahati781 022.
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.03.2014
First Appeal filed on : 11.06.2014
FAA's order : 15.07.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 26.07.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Anil Kumar Upadhyay filed an application dated 24.03.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Frontier Hqrs, Guwahati, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) seeking information on three points pertaining to his removal from service including (i) note sheets/notings of the decision taken by the Inspector General, Frontier Hqrs. Guwahati on receipt of appeal dated 16.10.2013 and petition dated 20.12.2013, (ii) advice of the Additional Judge Attorney General (Comdt) on the statutory appeal dated 16.10.2013 and reconsideration of appeal petition dated 20.12.2013 and (iv) copy of parawise comments submitted by the Comdt, 15th Bn with the opinion of the Dy. Inspector General, Sector Hqrs, SSB, Bongaigaon on his statutory appeal dated 16.10.2013.
2. The appellant filed second appeal dated 26.7.2014 before the Commission on the ground that information has been denied taking shelter under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 and the information sought by him does not pertain to either human rights violation or corruption. The appellant states that while he has been removed from service, the coaccused has been let off only with forfeiture of two years seniority in the rank of Constable which clearly shows biased decision against him and favorable decision for the coaccused and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO concerned to provide the information as sought by him. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Anil Kumar Upadhyay was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Sudhir Kumar, DIG (BSF) attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided as the SSB has been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) of the Act.
Decision:
5. The Commission observes that in this case information has been sought from SSB 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 observation, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer