Central Information Commission
Rohit Sharma vs Ministry Of Defence on 28 August, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067.
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/CC/C/2014/000085-AB
In the matter of:
Mr. Rohit Sharma
RTI Activist, Nangal Road, Ward No.2,
Near Sarkari School, Gaon&Post Office,
Santoshgarh, Distt-Una,Himachal Pradesh-174301. ...Complainant
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Defence
Dir. RTI & CPIO, RTI Cell,
ADG MT(AE) G-6,D-1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan, Gate No-4,
IHQ of MoD (Army)New Delhi-110011
&
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Defence
CPIO, Capt-At-Arms, Integrated HQ
Ministry of Defence(Navy)New Delhi-110011
&
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Home Affairs
CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, I.S.-II
Division (Arms)NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh
Road, 1st Floor, New Delhi-110001. ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 17-04-2014
CPIO reply : 16 -05-2014 & 22.05.2014 & 23.05.2014 &
26.05.2014
Complaint : 16-07-2014
Date of hearing : 26.09.2016
Information sought:
The applicant had sought details relating to seized drugs , fake currency, weapons etc in the borders, their disposal, details relating to death of Navy officers, whether killed soldiers are 1 treated as martyr(s), whether PMO or Ministry of Home Affairs take(s) any action for citizens who are taken as hostages by terrorists etc. Grounds for complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Interim Order Complainant : Absent Respondent : CPIO, Col. I.N. Awasthi with Major Ram Naresh Sharma On perusal of the record, it is seen that RTI application was sent to PMO which in turn was sent to the three authorities, MHA, M/o Defence and M/o Railway. After such transfer by PMO to these three ministries, the final reply in connection with the RTI application was sent by Indian navy in regard to point nos 6,7,8 of the said RTI application. The reply provided by Indian Navy were to the point and complete. The replies were also sent in time. Hence, the complaint does not subsist against CPIO, Indian Navy.
The complainant was not present to challenge the contention of the respondent PIO.
In regard to the point nos 1- 5, the final reply sent by authorities i.e. the CPIO , RTI Cell (IHQ), Army Sena Bhawan stating that information was not held by them as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act was not correct. Even if the said information was not held by them they should have transferred it u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned CPIO. This was not done. Hence, A Show Cause Notice is issued to the then CPIO, RTI Cell IHQ (Army), Sena Bhawan, New Delhi u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act to explain as to why information as per the RTI application was not provided.
It is also seen from the record that Director, MHA had sent an interim reply to the RTI applicant. From the reply of CPIO, MHA it appears that the senior officer was not very well versed in the RTI Act. The reply was as follows: "However, some information may be available with the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB). Hence, a copy of your application is being forwarded to NCRB with a request to provide the available information directly to you." The said endorsement was not done under section 6(3) of the RTI Act.2
The said Show Cause notice is to be served through the present CPIO to the then CPIO MHA. An explanation to the Show Cause Notice is to be submitted to the Commission within 21 days of the receipt of the order. A copy of order shall be sent to the CPIO, NCRB for his explanation on the above issue u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act also.
On receipt of the explanations to the Show Cause Notices as mentioned above from the concerned CPIOs, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken by the Commission in this regard.
The order is reserved.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner 3 File No : CIC/CC/C/2014/000085-AB Date of Final Decision:17.8.2017 Commission has perused the reply in response to show cause notice from the following CPIOs:-
(i) CPIO, RTI Cell, IHQ of MoD(Army) CPIO in his reply dated 07.11.2016 had transferred the parts of RTI Application to different public authorities as no information was held by them. The Complainant was also informed that information sought was not held by them.
(ii) CPIO, MHA CPIO in his reply dated 12.01.2017 has informed that the information sought was not available with him and accordingly transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to CPIO, NCRB and the Complainant was informed accordingly.
(iii) CPIO, NCRB, MHA CPIO in his reply submitted that the RTI Application was not received by them, and no reply could be provided. He further submitted that there was no deliberate attempt to hide the information.
In view of the submissions of CPIOs, Commission does not find any justification in pursuing with the Complaint and disposes of the same.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 4