Central Information Commission
V Ramamurthi vs Ministry Of Defence on 29 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/BELBL/A/2019/126431/DODEF
In the matter of:
V Ramamurthi
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL)
Corporate Office, Bangalore - 560 045
CPIO/DGM (CS& Law)
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., (ECIL)
Registered Office ECIL, Post Office,
Hyderabad - 500 062
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 21/02/2019 CPIO replied on : 07/03/2019, 15/05/2019 First appeal filed on : 19/03/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 19/04/2019 Second Appeal dated : 30/05/2019 Date of Hearing : 28/04/2021 Date of Decision : 28/04/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Ms. Hema, DGM (HR) CPIO BEL, Shri M.S.R.S Prasad, DGM (CS & Law) ECIL, present over phone Information Sought:
BEL is one of the manufacturers of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trial (VVPAT) Units for the Election Commission of India. In this connection, the appellant has sought the following information:1
1. Provide copies of the letters/memoranda relating to the quality testing of EVMs and VVPAT units approved by the Technical Experts Committee (TEC) constituted by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
2. Provide copies of BEL's internal circulars/letters/memoranda relating to the quality testing of EVMs and VVPAT units based on 1 above.
3. If BEL is following ISO-2500-1:2000 sampling procedure, the provide information on i) Lot size, ii) Inspection type, iii) Inspection level, etc.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided an evasive reply. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 24.04.2021 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED662985788IN. The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided vide letter dated 07.03.2019.
Observations:
The CPIO vide letter dated 07.03.2019 denied the information sought in points no. 1 & 2 u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. In respect of point no. 3 a suitable reply was given. Furthermore, in respect of point no. 4 the CPIO replied that the same is not applicable. The FAA vide order dated 19.04.2019 had directed the CPIO to provide a suitable reply in respect of point no. 1 of the RTI application as the appellant is not satisfied. Accordingly, the CPIO vide letter dated 22.05.2019 had provided a revised reply.
The appellant was not present to specify the deficiency in the reply given. The Commission too could not find any deficiency in the reply. Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter and accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 2 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3