Central Information Commission
A Dronacharulu vs Department Of Defence Research & ... on 28 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/RK/C/2016/000108/DODRD
Dated 27.03.2017
Complainant : Shri A. Dronacharulu,
H. No. 12-4-141, Road No. 4D,
Pragathi Nagar, Moosapet,
Hyderabad-500018.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Defence Research & Development
Laboratory, Kanchanbagh,
Hyderabad-500058.
Date of Hearing : 27.03.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI application dated : 19.09.2015
Complaint dated : 15.03.2016
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Defence Research & Development Laboratory (DRDL), Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Hyderabad seeking information on four points regarding upgradation of educational qualifications in the Defence Research Technical Cadre (DRTC), Administration and Allied grades since 2005.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought has not been provided by the CPIO. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him.
CIC/RK/C/2016/000108/DODRD Page1 Hearing: 3. Shri Paparao, representative of the complainant, Shri A.
Dronacharulu and the respondent Shri Ratan Prasad, CPIO, DRDL attend the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Dr. R.B. Sharma, Scientist-G and CPIO, DRDO was present in person.
4. The complainant submitted that information sought has not been provided to him by the respondent. The complainant further submitted that he has not received any reply in response to either his RTI application or the first appeal.
5. The respondent submitted that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 22.09.2015 that the DRDO has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information sought by the complainant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. In view of this, the information sought cannot be provided to the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the FAA vide his order dated 12.04.2016 has also upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that in this case information has been sought from an organization to which the RTI Act does not apply as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Further, the information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Hence, information cannot be provided to the complainant. However, since the complainant has not received the CPIO's and the FAA's order, the respondent is directed to resend a copy of the letters dated 22.09.2015 and 12.04.2016 respectively to the complainant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
CIC/RK/C/2016/000108/DODRD Page2
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/RK/C/2016/000108/DODRD Page3