Central Information Commission
Babulal Saini vs Border Road Organisation on 5 April, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/BRDOR/A/2018/161281
In the matter of:
Babulal Saini
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Joint Director (Admn.)
Headquarters, Dte General Border Roads (DGBR),
Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi - 110 010
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 11/06/2018 CPIO replied on : 06/07/2018 First appeal filed on : 26/07/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 27/08/2018 Second Appeal filed on : 28/09/2018 Date of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Date of Decision : 01/04/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC at Jhunjhunu Respondent: Dr Ashok Kumar, Senior Administrative Officer and CPIO, present over VC at CIC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought a copy of the report of the committee constituted pursuant to the Order issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the W.P.(C)-758/2014 - Om Prakash Chauhan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Others.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 24 of the RTI Act. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him. He submitted that the information sought is related to human rights violation as the writ petition was related to him and the salary given to him is lower in comparison to other departments.
The CPIO submitted that BRO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of the RTI Act. He also informed that the organization has a grievance cell where this matter can be taken up by the appellant as this is a service grievance and not a human rights violation.
Observations:
It is noted that Border Roads Organisation has been placed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
The status of Border Roads Organisation (BRO) in relation to BRDB has been clarified by Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways (BRDB) vide their I.D Note No.F.06/280/BRDB/ADMN-2005 dated 02.03.2006 and Memo No. BRDB/03/199/GE-1, dated 08.09.2009 that "the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) is an executive arm of Border Road Development Board and is part of it.
Therefore, RTI Act does not apply to BRO except in cases of corruption and human rights violation, as specified in the Act" and that "BRO draws its work force from two streams i.e. Army and Civil. The personnel from Civil stream are called as General Reserve Engineer Force,(popularly known as GREF). The officers and subordinates from the Army are posted to BRO on Extra Regimental Employment (ERE) tenure for a period of two and half to three years."
In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the BRO. For better clarity, Section 24(1) of the Act is reproduced below:
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being 2 organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this subsection: 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.
This has been re-asserted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its decision in Civil Appeal No. 6454 arising out of SLP No. 7526/2009 in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case stating: ''Exclusion of the Act in entirety under Section 24 to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule even though they may be "public authorities", (except in regard to information with reference to allegations of corruption and human rights violations)''.
The Commission observed that the appellant is nursing a service grievance and should approach the Administrative Grievance Redressal Authority, to redress his grievance.
Decision:
As in the present case, there is no issue of violation of human rights or corruption, the reply of the CPIO is upheld and no relief can be given to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date