Central Information Commission
Shri B.S. Sharma vs Ministry Of Home Affairs (Mha) on 2 September, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00371 dated 22-1-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri B.S. Sharma,
Respondent: Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
Decision announced on 2.9.'09
FACTS
By an application of 27-9-07 Shri B.S. Sharma of 133, Platinum Park, Mata Mandir, Bhopal applied to the CPIO, MHA seeking the following information:
"1. Attested copies of entire proceedings/sheet/note sheet in regard to the action taken on an application submitted for registration under FCRA 1976 by All India Consumer Congress Bhopal.
2. Attested copies of entire proceedings/sheet/note sheet in regard to the action taken on the letters dated 19-12-06, 28- 3-07, 14-6-07 and 19-9-07 submitted by All India Consumer Congress Bhopal.
3. The number of organisations registered by MHA during 1-12- 05 to 27-9-07, the attested copies of orders passed there under and attested copies of recommendation letters of State Govts.
4. The attested copies of complete documents which explain as to why their organisation has not been registered even after all the clarifications were made by it.
5. If there are any guidelines issued by the MHA under this regulation then attested copies be provided.
6. Attested copies of relevant provisions under which the application for registration of All India Consumer Congress has been rejected.
To this Shri B.S. Sharma received a response dated 23-10-07 from CPIO Shri S.K. Shahi, Dy. Secretary MHA, who had received the application on 9-10-07, as follows:
"The documents sought by you contains extract of report from an agency covered under Schedule 2 of the RTI Act and cannot be divulged."
Aggrieved with this response Shri B.S. Sharma moved an appeal before the Appellate Authority dated 29-10-07 in response to which Shri 1 Ashim Khurana, JS (Foreigners) in his order of 5-12-07 has informed appellant as follows:
1. Sl. No. 1-2 Documents sought by you contain references to any agency listed in Schedule 2 and therefore covered by Section 24 (1) o the RTI Act. It is regretted that the desired information cannot be provided.
2. Sl. No. 2 Between 1.12.2005 and 27.9.2007, 2675 associations have been granted registration under the FCRA. It is not possible to provide the copies of the note sheets, orders, and letters of recommendation certificate received with FC-8 applications between 1.12.2005 to 27.9.2007 as it is not maintained in a compiled form and culling out this information would require disproportionate deployment of manpower.
3. Sl. No. 4 Your representation against the decision of refusal of grant registration, conveyed in this Ministry's letter dated 6.2.2006 has been meticulously examined as per extant procedures and the request was finally turned down vide letter dated 14.9.2007 as it was reported that functioning of your association is motivated by personal gains.
4. Sl. No. 5 Common grounds for rejection of applications of registration is available on this Ministry's website www.mha.nic.in.
5. Sl. No. 6 Registration was effused on the basis of the reason mentioned at ground no. 4 in the list of 'Common grounds for rejection uploaded on the Ministry's website referred to above.
Shri Sharma has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"It is requested that u/s 19 (8) the Commission may pass an order that the CPIO provides the information to him without any further delay. Further, it is also requested that CPIO be penalised as per Sec. 20 (1) of the RTI Act @ Rs.250/- a day till such time the information stands provided and the same may be recovered and handed over to him. It is further requested that respondents be recommended for disciplinary proceedings as per Sec. 20 (2) of the RTI Act.
Shri B.S. Sharma has based this prayer on the following two grounds:2
1. That the AA has not passed any orders on the important issues raised by appellant. He has failed in addressing the legal question put forward by him. The AA instead of disposing the appeal has provided for irrelevant replies which is against the provisions of RTI Act.
2. That the registration of an organisation under an Act passed by the Parliament cannot be a matter of intelligence or the matter of any security. It is purely an administrative issue.
As is evident that if MHA there are various sections like Internal Security Department, Intelligence Dep't., and they have separate CPIOs and the AAs who looks after the registration. By citing provisions of Sec. 24 (1) to reject the information sought for by him is ultra virus.
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 2-9-2009. The following are present.
Appellant at NIC Studio, Bhopal.
Shri B.S. Sharma, Bhopal Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi Shri S. K. Shahi, Deputy Secretary.
Shri H. K. Kawllienthang, Deputy Secretary.
We have received a request from JS, Shri Ashim Khurana dated 1-9-09 seeking exemption from appearance at the hearing and deputing Shri S.K. Shahi, DS and Shri H.K. Kawllienthang, US both dealing with FCRA to attend the hearing. This was agreed to.
In response to our questions the CPIO Shri S.K. Shahi, DS submitted that the information sought was regarding the decision arrived at on the basis of information received from the Intelligence Bureau which is not covered by the RTI Act 2005 as per Section 24 (1) being an agency listed at serial No. 1 of the Second Schedule. To authenticate this fact the file was perused and the report of the Intelligence Bureau on the appellant's NGO perused.
Appellant Shri B.S. Sharma objected to the refusal of registration on the ground that his NGO had already been honoured by other agencies of the Government of India and cited the report of the concerned Collector who had authenticated this from the local police.
3It was explained to appellant Shri B.S. Sharma that it is not for this Commission to go into the merits of the refusal of Registration under FCRA in the case of his organisation, but only to ensure that such information as sought by him is provided. Shri Sharma, however, stated that with regard to those organisations which have been cleared only the number had been conveyed to him but no further details which CPIO Shri S.P. Shahi explained were, in fact, accessible on the website, the address of which has already been provided to the appellant.
DECISION NOTICE Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act is as follows:
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government 1 t:
We must, therefore, agree with respondents that the communication received from the Intelligence Bureau with regard to the agency run by the appellant cannot be accessed under the RTI Act, as underlined by us. Shri B.S. Sharma's plea in the hearing that the matter involved corruption at the level of the Ministry is not supported by any allegation in the application of 21- 9-07 which simply asks for certified copies of documents and makes no such allegation.
However, we agreed that as per Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act the information is expected to be provided to an applicant in the form in which it is sought. If the names of the association which have been granted registration under the FCRA are available on the website, it is not enough to simply inform the applicant of this fact. A copy of this list of names will now be provided to appellant Shri B.S. Sharma within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. To this extent the appeal is allowed. There will however, be no cost.1
Underlined by us for reference 4 It is further clarified with reference to the prayer of appellant Shri B.S. Sharma in his appeal before us that even when a penalty is levied, the returns from such levy are payable only to Government and not to an applicant under the RTI Act, who may be entitled to compensation u/s 19 (8) (b) for any loss or detriment suffered which in this case is an issue that has not arisen.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 2-9-2009 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 2-9-2009 5