Central Information Commission
K R Sashikanthan vs Ministry Of Defence on 26 April, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
File No. CIC/CC/A/2015/003000/SD
Date of Decision : 26/04/2017
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : K R Sashikanthan
12-4-7 Sri Sashta Nagar
1st St. Mudallathan
Madurai TN
Respondent : CPIO
HQ Dte General Board Roads
Ring Road, Delhi Cantt - 10
RTI application filed on : 02/09/2014
PIO replied on : 15/10/2014
First appeal filed on : 01/12/2014
First Appellate Authority : 27/01/2015
order
Second Appeal dated : 20/03/2015
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 8 points regarding DPC proceedings held on 16.03.2011 for promotion of 46 officers from the rank of AE(W) to AEE(W) for the vacancy year 2009-2010.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.1
Respondent: Ram Kishan, AAO & CPIO and Y.R. Balotia, Asstt., HQ DGBR, New Delhi present in person.
Appellant stated that it is the FAA who has provided information under RTI Act, hence he has come in Appeal before the Commission.
CPIO submitted that Border Road Development Board (BRDB) is exempt under Section 24(2) of the RTI Act except in cases of allegation of corruption and human rights violation.
Decision Border Road Development Board (BRDB) 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 General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) and 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 and GREF. 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 organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:2
File No. CIC/CC/A/2015/003000/SD Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
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 it's 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)''.
In view of the above, as in the present case, there is no allegation of violation of human rights or corruption, submission of the CPIO is upheld by the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3