Central Information Commission
Nirmal Kumar Dubey vs Defence Research And Development ... on 24 February, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/DRADO/A/2019/635675
In the matter of:
Nirmal Kumar Dubey
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Scientist G & CPIO
Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (VRDE),
Vahannagar, Ahmednagar - 414006
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/12/2018 CPIO replied on : 21/01/2019 First appeal filed on : 28/01/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 26/02/2019 Second Appeal Filed on : 11/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 23/02/2021 Date of Decision : 23/02/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Dr D Radhakrishna, Scientist G & CPIO, present over VC and Ms Anushree Tomer, representative of the CPIO, DRDO Hqrs, present over intra VC.
Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the date of receipt of DO letter No. 59492/NK Dubey/Pers/Grievance/DG/01 dated 24/09/2018 sent by the appellant to DRDO, HQ and details of all actions initiated including correspondence with VRDE and reply of VRDE.1
2. Provide the date of receipt of DO letter No 59492/NK Dubey/Pers/Grievance/DG/02 dated 08/10/2018 sent by the appellant to DRDO HQ and details of all actions initiated including correspondence with VRDE and reply of VRDE.
3. Provide the details of departmental/independent enquiry ordered and copy of the final report.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided the incorrect information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The notice of hearing sent to the Appellant vide speed post no. ED656572133IN dated 09.02.2021 was returned with the remarks "Addressee left without instructions". The appellant too has not made any effort to send any written communication to the Commission updating his address in case he has changed the same. The hearing notice was also emailed to the appellant on the address mentioned in his RTI application. It is also found that in his other cases also, the notice of hearing was returned to the Commission as undelivered because of the same reason. In view of this, the Commission is not in a position to send any further intimation to the Appellant in this regard for want of an alternate correspondence address in the records. In the interest of justice, the case is being decided on merits.
In his second appeal memo, the appellant had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information has been denied to the appellant by seeking exemption u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act despite the fact that the desired information is not related to intelligence and security activities but is related to the misuse of the government offices, unauthorized practices and the prevalent nepotism. He also relied on a CIC order passed in File No. CIC/SA/C/2016/000089 according to which routine activities other than those related to intelligence and security are not exempt under section 24 of the RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that DRDO is an exempt organization under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and a reply to this effect was given to the appellant on 21.01.2019.2
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission is in agreement with the reply of the CPIO and the order of the FAA and concludes that DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
It is pertinent to quote an observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in W.P(C) 83/2014 where it was held that "...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption"
Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that-
"...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act".
In view of the above quoted judgments, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged. In the instant case, no case of human rights violation or corruption has been made out by the Appellant in his second appeal memo.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.3
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4