Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sanjay Yadav vs Border Security Force on 25 October, 2022

                                   के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई द ली,
                                 ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2022/127316
                                     CIC/BDRSF/A/2021/132166

Shri Sanjay Yadav                                             ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                     ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
BSF
Date of Hearing                       :    11.10.2022
Date of Decision                      :    25.10.2022
Chief Information Commissioner        :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.

  Case      RTI Filed    CPIO reply       First appeal      FAO         2nd Appeal
   No.         on                                                      received on
 127316    09.02.2021    17.03.2021       11.03.2021           -       09.06.2021
 132166    09.02.2021    17.03.2021       26.04.2021           -       11.08.2021

Information sought

and background of the case:

(1) CIC/BDRSF/A/2022/127316 (2) CIC/BDRSF/A/2021/132166 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.2021 mentioning names of certain Higher Dignitaries, IPS and BSF Officers in connection with letter No. F. NO.

11/79/FHQ(pers)Estt-2016/BSF dated 31.10.2016 signed by Shri Baby Joseph, Offg DIG(Estt) who kept BSF personnel (i.e. SA, Cook, Drivers etc.) at their residence after retirement and sought the following information:-

The CPIO/DIG, Directorate General, BSF, vide letter dated 17.03.2021 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 11.03.2021 and 26.04.2021.

The FAA/Inspector General (Pers), Directorate General, BSF, vide order dated 06.03.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO and DIG (Pers), BSF vide letter dated 06.10.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.

Another written submission has been received from the CPIO and GIG (C-Esstt/Coord, Information and Comm Technology Dte, BSF vide letter dated 07.10.2022 wherein it was stated that their organisation is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24 (1) r/w the Second Schedule of the Act.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the issues raised vide his RTI application pertained to misuse of manpower by retired IPS/ BSF officers as trained soldiers were used to perform household chores. With regard to Second Appeal No CIC/BDRSF/A/2021/132166, he stated that his RTI application pertained to different issues regarding "Money squandered by BSF to implement BOLDQIT projects in Dhubri and involvement of officers senior to Satish Kumar and Jibu Mathew and 'G' Vigilance Branch in large scale cattle smuggling through AoR between 2016 to 2018". However, in reply to the Second RTI application as well exemption u/s 24 (1) r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act was incorrectly claimed by the Respondent.

The Respondent represented by Shri Karni Singh Shekhawat, DIG, BSF and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, DIG, BSF participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Shekhawat stated that since the information sought inter alia pertained to deployment of Security Assistants, the same was sensitive in nature hence exemption u/s 24 (1) of the RTI Act was claimed as no allegation of corruption or violation of human rights was justified by the Appellant.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the Appellant has not made any specific and verifiable allegation of corruption or violation of human rights in his Second appeal and the issues raised by him pertain to an irregularity regarding misutilisation of manpower.

The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its decision in Palwinder Sondhi v Central Information Commission and Ors WP (C) No. 13211 of 2010 dated 28.07.2010 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Mr. Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya WP (C) No. 345/ 2018 dated 19.02.2018 have held that the only exception carved out from the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act relates to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation which has not been justified in the present instance.

In Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya's case, the CIC had allowed disclosure of information regarding the action taken on a complaint filed by the information seeker regarding alleged economic offences such as cheating, financial irregularity, embezzlement of money, violating FEMA etc. committed by Thomas Cook India Ltd, Vadodara office in which the Appellant himself was the affected person directly. The Commission had allowed disclosure of broad outcome of the action taken on the Complaint while holding that the Appellant had made sustainable allegations of palpable fraudulent activities undertaken by Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. in contravention of the FEMA Rules and regulations thus causing huge suspicion on the alleged malpractices by the concerned private entity, which is a matter of serious concern. The decision of the Commission was however overruled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 19.02.2018, the relevant extract of which is as under:

"6. Plainly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is contrary to the expressed language of Section 24(1) of the Act. Section 24(1) of the Act expressly excludes intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act from the purview of the Act. Admittedly, the Directorate of Enforcement is included in the Second Schedule to the Act and, thus, cannot be called upon to disclose information under the provisions of the Act. The only exception carved out from the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act relates to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Undisputedly, the information sought for by the petitioner cannot be categorized as such information.

7. The aforesaid question has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CPIO Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi : 242 (2017) DLT 542, wherein this Court held that an organisation specified in the Second Schedule of the Act was excluded from the purview of the Act.

8. In view of the above, the petition and the pending application are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, it is clarified that this would not preclude the respondent from instituting any proceedings that he may be advised against M/s Thomas Cook (India) Limited, if so, entitled in law."

In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. With regard to Second Appeal No CIC/BDRSF/A/2021/132166, the Commission finds that complete documents including the RTI application/ reply of the CPIO have not been forwarded by the Appellant, till date despite issuance of deficiency notices by the Commission, and hence proper adjudication of the case is not possible.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4