Central Information Commission
Prabhat Tripathi vs Central Reserve Police Force on 22 April, 2021
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CRPFO/A/2018/633220
Sh. Prabhat Tripathi ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, O/o DIG (Group Centre) P.O. Hakimpet ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Secunderabad, Rangareddy, Andhra Pradesh
Date of Hearing : 24.04.2020, 19.04.2021
Date of Decision - Interim : 30.04.2020
Date of Decision- Final : 22.04.2021
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.06.2018
PIO replied on : -
First Appeal filed on : 17.07.2018
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 09.10.2018
ORDER
The instant appeal arises out of an RTI application registered online on 03.06.2018 (as CRPFO/R/2018/50191) by the appellant related tocorruption in 91 Battalion of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The queries are as follows:
"..Narration: 3500 sand bags were purchased on 02/02/2013 by 91 Battalion (Bn)CRPF. As per information these were not purchased and fake billwas raised. Sand bags were also not found during physical checkingof store in some coys. Kindly provide the following informationrelated to this purchase.
Question: 1 Kindly intimate the date of distribution of these sand bags to coysof 91 Bn from 91 Bn store by unit Qm and name of representative ofcoys who received it from Bn Store with date. Question:2 Kindly intimate the date of Physical receiving of these sand bags byAll coys(A to G coy) and date of entry in their coy stock register.
Question: 3 Name of supplier who has supplied these 3500 sandbags to unit with his TIN.
Narration: During financial year 2011-12 charcoal was purchased by 91 Bn foruse of coys Dhobi to iron /press the cloths of unit personnel. Now ithas also come to notice that it was also not purchased, hence it isrelated to corrupt practices. Kindly provide the information of following questions:-
Question: 4 Kindly intimated the quantity of charcoal purchased during the year2011-12 and name of supplier with TIN of his firm. Question: 5 Kindly intimate the details of distribution of thischarcoal to coys(A to G).
Question:6 Kindly intimate the date of Physical receiving of distributedcharcoal by All coys(A to G coy) and date of entry in their coystock register.
Question: 7Kindly intimate the coy wise date by which these charcoal wereconsumed by coys.
Question:8 Kindly intimate the availability of Charcoal press in the coys (A toG) from Year 2011to 2013.
Upon non-receipt of response, the appellant filed First Appeal (registered with CRPF as CRPFO/A/2018/60066)was also non adjudicated, as per the appellant's contentions. Hence, the instant Second Appeal was filed by the appellant.
Proceedings during hearing:
Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.
Before dealing with the merits of the case, the foremost point which needs to be addressed in the instant case is of the applicability of the provisions of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and the maintainability of the present appeal. Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 reads as follows:
24. Act not to apply to certain organizations-
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-
section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
The Respondent public authority is enlisted in Second Schedule of the RTI Act and as such, exempt from provisions of this Act. The only exception carved out to the rule is wherein information sought relates to allegations of corruption/human rights violations and approval to disclosure is accorded by this Commission.
The appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 8004923647 and submitted that he is an officer serving in the CRPF currently and has sought the aforesaid information to unearth alleged corrupt practices carried out in 91 Battalion of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
Interim Decision The facts of the case indicate that the information sought by the appellant deal with charges of corruption, which fall within the exception provided under Section 24 of the RTI Act, wherein the Commission can exercise its adjudication under the RTI Act. However, in order to arrive at a decision, it is found imperative that the respondent is heard at length on the allegations levelled by the appellant. Hence, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the instant appeal needs to be re-scheduled and appropriate notice be sent to the concerned respondent, of the 91 Bn of the Central Reserve Police Force for hearing on a later date.
Appeal may be re-scheduled for hearing in the normal course.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing on 19.04.2021:
A written submission has been received from CPIO and DIG, RAF- Range-3 vide letter dated 01.04.2021 explaining the factual position in the matter. In the reply it was stated that point wise response was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.10.2018. Thereafter, subsequent to the earlier direction of the Commission, point wise response was again provided to him vide letter dated 29.07.2020.
A written submission has also been received from the Appellant dated 08.04.2021 which has been taken on record.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Later, hearings through audio conference were scheduled, given the sharp increase in Covid-19 infections.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He referred to his written submission and stated that there was a contradiction in the response provided to him with regard to the instant RTI application vis a vis' the response provided in another RTI application in 2014. He stated that in 2012-13, the HQ of 91 Bn CRPF was located in Lucknow and its 2 coys (D/91 and E/91) were deputed in Nanded. On 20.05.2013, he had checked the store of these coys and found shortage of 2000 sandbags (1000 sandbags each in each coy). Thus, he filed a written complaint in the matter. As per CRPF rules, a Court of Inquiry (COI) was required to be conducted but no action was taken. Thereafter, he filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2014, to get the information on COI and action taken on the shortage of sand bags. On 13.08.2014, the CPIO had informed him that on the date of his checking i.e., 20.05.2013, these sandbags were available in Lucknow. Whereas, the CPIO and DIG, CRPF Group Centre, Rangareddy, in response to the instant RTI application informed him vide letter dated 09.10.2018 that the sandbags were issued on 09.02.2013 and physically received by D/91 coy on 09.02.2013 which was not possible as the company was deployed in Maharashtra. It was further conveyed that the E/91 coy received the sandbags on 26.02.2013. Thus, the reply dated 09.10.2018 was contradictory to the earlier reply dated 13.08.2014.
The Respondent represented by Shri D.S. Bains, DIG participated in the hearing through audio conference. He reiterated the reply of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated that the available information was provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the Appellant has highlighted a contradiction in the reply provided to him in the response dated 09.10.2018 vis a vis' an earlier response dated 13.08.2014. Thus, taking into consideration that the instant RTI application relates to allegations of corruption, the Commission directs Smt Neelam Baunthiyal, 2-I/C, DIG, Range-3, RAF, Dehradun to furnish an affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper to the Appellant explaining the factual position in the matter and affirming the correctness of the reply provided to the Appellant dated 09.10.2018. Taking into consideration, the rampant spread of Covid-19 in the country, the Commission directs Smt Baunthiyal to comply with the above direction by 15.06.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535