Central Information Commission
Mrtarun Kumar Banjaree vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 December, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/CC/A/2014/002798/SB
Dated 31.12.2015
Appellant : Shri Tarun Kumar Banjaree,
Dy. Commandant,
12 Bn. I.T.B.P., Matli,
Disstt - Uttarkashi,
Uttarakand249193.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Union Public Service Commission
Shahjahan Road, Dholpur House
New Delhi110069.
Date of Hearing : 28.12.2015
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.06.2014
CPIO replied on : 01.07.2014
First Appeal filed on : 25.07.2014
FAA's Order on : 08.08.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 01.12.2014
ORDER
1 Shri Tarun Kumar Banjaree filed an application dated 13.06.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Public Service Commission UPSC) seeking a copy of the letter forwarded by ITBP to the UPSC for the recruitment of Assistant Commandant/GD through Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) Examination.
2. The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO did not furnish the information stating that the requested information does not fall under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the reply of the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO/FAA concerned to provide the information sought by him. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Tarun Kumar Banjaree was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Madhukar Sood, CPIO and Under Secretary, UPSC was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 01.07.2014 that the UPSC conducts CAPF examination based on Rules framed and notified by the Government. Further, since the information sought by him pertains to ITBP, his RTI application has been transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to CPIO, ITBP. The respondent further submitted that the CPIO, ITBP had informed the appellant vide letter dated 17.07.2014 that the requisite information does not fall in category of information that can be provided by ITBP under Section 24 of the RTI Act. The FAA, ITBP vide order dated 08.08.2014 had observed that the action by CPIO is in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Decision:
5. The Commission notes that in this matter the ITBP is the Public Authority. However, notice has been issued to CPIO, UPSC as the case was registered in the name of UPSC by Central Registry Section of the Commission. Hence, the Commission directs the Registry to issue a fresh notice to ITBP.
6. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer