Ravi Kumar Soi vs Ministry Of Defence on 17 May, 2023

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ravi Kumar Soi vs Ministry Of Defence on 17 May, 2023

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                           क य सुचना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                           File no.: - CIC/DODEF/A/2022/150189
In the matter of
Ravi Kumar Soi
                                                                    ... Appellant
                                       VS
The CPIO
Principal Controller of Def. Accounts, (WC),
Sector 9A,
Chandigarh - 160009
                                                                  ...Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   29/06/2022
CPIO replied on                   :   19/07/2022
First appeal filed on             :   02/08/2022

First Appellate Authority order   :   02/09/2022
Second Appeal Filed on            :   25/10/2022
Date of Hearing                   :   17/05/2023
Date of Decision                  :   17/05/2023

The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC

Respondent: Rajiv Sood, Deputy Controller and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information related to audit of Cantonment Board by LAO, Ferozepur:

- Provide copies of all the Audit Reports for the period from May 2018 to December, 2020. Also provide details of audit in respect of payments made in respect of those projects, whose value had been more than Rs.50,000/- but had been executed without signing of any written agreement. Grounds for filing Second Appeal:

The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant vide his written submissions dated NIL stated that the RTI application concerns the misutilisation of public funds and alleges a violation of various regulations, including the General Financial Rules (GFR) 2017, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines, and the Cantonment Act 2006. Specifically, he claim that officers of the Cantonment Board Ferozepur have split works into smaller amounts to bring them under their jurisdiction for approval, and that the execution of agreements for works above Rs. 50,000 is mandatory but has not been carried out. The appellant also alleges that audits carried out by the officers of PCDA revealed that Cantonment Board Ferozepur executed works worth crores of rupees without any agreements. The appellant believes that the CPIO has not provided them with information due to the reasons mentioned above.

The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided vide letter dated 19.07.2022. He also reiterated his written submissions dated 16.05.2023.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 19.07.2022 replied to the appellant and stated that information sought is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant challenged the reply in the first appeal and stated that he has the right to know the utilisation of the public fund. The FAA disposed of the first appeal on 02.09.2022 and held that the information sought is exempted u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed a second appeal stating that public funds utilisation should be transparent.

The Commission observed that audit reports that relates to government- funded projects or projects that have a significant impact on the public may be considered to be in the public interest, and therefore subject to disclosure under the RTI Act. To avoid disclosure of confidential and personal information of any third party, it is possible that certain information within the audit report may be redacted u/s 10 of the RTI Act, while other parts may be disclosed. The CPIO was therefore asked to explain during the hearing, the applicability of exemptions claimed and possibility of Sec 10 applicability. The CPIO submitted that the Cantonment Board is the custodian and stated that their office is only doing selected audit.

Decision:

The Commission finds the reply provided by the CPIO irrelevant. Moreover, the CPIO when claiming exemptions, cannot take the plea that they are not the custodian. He is directed accordingly to take assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the custodian and provide a revised reply to the appellant as discussed above within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.



                                            Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
                                    Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)

Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत          त)


A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
 दनांक / Date




                                       3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission