Central Information Commission
Shri Subey Singh vs National Crime Record Bureau (Ncrb) on 2 April, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01506 dated 6-12-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Subey Singh
Respondent: National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB)
FACTS
By an application of 31-8-07 Shri Subey Singh of Nanakpura, New Delhi sought the following information from Asstt. Director, NCRB:
1. "Please supply me the copy of the order No. 34/4/2006-
Ad.I-A-NCRB, dated 10-10-2006 passed by Shri Sudhir Awasti, Director, NCRB.
2. Please also provide me photocopy of letter No. 731- E/54689-RPF dt. 4-8-06 of Northern Railway Hqrs. Regarding recovery of Rs. 14088/- on account of LWOP of Shri Bijender Singh.
3. Whether Director, NCRB is competent to set aside the order of RPF or any other Department. If yes, under what rule, and also provide the copy of such rule. And which amount has been sent to Railways, copy of that bill be also provided."
To this he received a response on 1-10-07 point-wise as follows:-
Question Answer
1. Please supply me the copy of the You can obtain copy of the order No.
order No. 34/4/2006-Ad.I-A-NCRB, 34/4/2006-Ad.I-A-NCRB, dated 10-
dated 10-10-2006 passed by Shri 10-2006 by depositing Rs. 2/-.
Sudhir Awasti, Director, NCRB.
2. Please also provide me photocopy You can obtain copy of letter No. 731-
of letter No. 731-E/54689-RPF dt. 4- E/54689-RPF dt. 4-8-06 of Northern
8-06 of Northern Railway Hqrs. Railway Hqrs by depositing Rs. 2/-.
Regarding recovery of Rs. 14088/- on
account of LWOP of Shri Bijender
Singh.
3. Whether Director, NCRB is When order was issued by Northern
competent to set aside the order of Railway Hqrs. for recovery of Rs.
RPF or any other Department. If yes, 14088/- from Shri Vijender Singh, at
under what rule, and also provide the that time Vijender Singh was working
copy of such rule. And which amount in NCRB under the administrative
has been sent to Railways, copy of control of Director, NCRB. So,
that bill be also provided." Vijender Singh has made appeal
before the Director, NCRB against the
order of recovery. Director, NCRB
has considered his appeal and after
verifying the relevant/medical record
1
he decided to set aside the order of
recovery of Rs. 14088/-. In this
regard no amount has been returned
to the Northern Railway.
Not satisfied with the answer to question No. 3 however, appellant moved his first appeal on 24-10-07, upon which he received an order dated 23-11-07 dismissing his appeal as follows:
"Regarding question No.3 you have been informed of the factual circumstances under RTI Act. The order of setting aside the recovery has been taken by Director, NCRB as controlling officer of Shri Vijender Singh.
Your request for supply of copy of noting during the appeal is your new request, and you are requested to send a fresh appeal under the RTI Act."
Appellant Shri Subey Singh's prayer before us in his second appeal reiterates his dissatisfaction with the response to question No. 3 as follows:
"Regarding question No. 3 in my RTI Application I request your good self to issue strict orders to CPIO and Appellate Authority to provide me the correct information as soon as possible.
The CPIO and Appellate Authority be charged with fine for not providing me information under the RTI Act and misleading me."
The appeal was heard on 2-4-2009. The following are present.
Appellant Shri Subey Singh Respondents Shri N.K. Singh, Asstt. Director Shri Binu Peter, U.D.C. Respondent Shri N.K. Singh submitted that other than the order itself the NCRB hold no further record with regard to this question. He also confirmed that there are no departmental rules empowering the Director, NCRB in this matter. The order of 10-10-06 by which the action was taken regarding which this question is being raised has already been supplied to appellant Shri Subey Singh which was confirmed by him in the hearing. This is a speaking order describing the basis of the decision.
2DECISION NOTICE It would appear that such information as is held by the NCRB on the subject in question has, in fact, been provided to appellant Shri Subey Singh. However, we agree with the appellant that the response to his question No.3 while elaborating on the orders of Director, has not answered the specific question of the rules under which this order was passed. It has now been confirmed in the hearing that there are no such rules and that the grounds for passing the order are only those found in the order of 10-10-06, a copy of which is already in the possession of appellant.
It is now open to the appellant to agitate this matter in any appropriate forum if he considers that the rule has been broken or law violated. The purpose of the RTI Act having been met, however, there is no space for further intervention by this Commission. This appeal, inasmuch as it is made under Sec 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, is accordingly dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 2-4-2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 2-4-2009 3