CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00087 dated 3.2.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Decision announced : 3.8.2009
Appellant - Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal
Respondent - Border Security Force (BSF)
Facts
:
By an application of 24.9.2007 Ms. Sangeeta Aggarwal of Muzaffar Nagar,
UP applied to the Personnel Directorate, Office of DG, BSF seeking answers to
14 questions arising from a basic question which was the following:
“Whether the order No. 25017/1/86-Staff/BSF dated 05th August
1988 issued from Pers Dte FHQ BSF N/ Delhi was correct and
legal or not?”
To this she received response of 2.8.07 from CPIO Shri M. I. Khan, DIG
(Personnel) as follows:
“It is to inform you that BSF is a Security Organization of the
Government of India and that a qualified exemption has been given
under section 24 of the RTI to BSF. As such no information relating
to this organization can be provided.
Pursuant to the provisions made in Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005
your request for providing information about any matter relating to
BSF could not be acceded to.”
Aggrieved by this response, Ms. Aggarwal moved an appeal before the
DG, BSF on 20.8.07 in which she has submitted that ” it is clearly a matter of
violation of human rights.” She has also complained as follows:
“The CPIO has also not communicated the particulars of the
first appellate authority and hence it is filed to the DG, BSF.”
To this Ms. Aggarwal received a curious response from Shri B.S. Kasana,
Comdt. (Staff), Directorate General, BSF dated 29.8.07, as follows:
1
“In this context, it is stated that the DD received along with your
application is drawn in favour of Accounts Officer, who is not
appropriate authority in this regard as such your application along
with DD is returned herewith. Kindly send the same along with DD
drawn in favour of the Commandant (Coord), BSF.”
Consequently Ms. Aggarwal has moved a complaint before us with the
following prayer:
1. To arrange to furnish the requested information (request made
to CPIO on 24th July, 2007) at the earliest.
2. As the CPIO malafidely denied the request for information,
action under section 20(1), 20 (2) may please be initiated.
Special Request: Due to some social limitations and personal
reasons, it is not possible for me to appear before any authority
please. Therefore, it is prayed to you kindly exempt me from such
appearance if needed.’
The appeal was heard on 3.8.09. The following are present:
Respondents
Shri M. K. Chhabra, IPS, DIG, BSF
Shri Eapen P.V., Comdt.
Arrangement had been made for video conference with Muzaffar Nagar in
the event that appellant Ms. Agarwal wished to attend. However, she has opted
not to be present, as already requested in her appeal before us.
CPIO Sri M. K. Chhabra, DIG admitted that the earlier response dated
29.8.07 to Ms. Aggarwal was erroneous. However, this had been rectified by a
subsequent response of 20.9.07 sent by Shri Y. Y. Hardayal, DIG (Pers) ion
receiving the fee from appellant, a copy of which was examined by us. This
order simply upholds the response from CPIO Shri Khan.
DECISION NOTICE
The original application of 24.9.07 submitted by appellant Ms. Aggarwal
carries no allegation of human rights violation but is purely a request for
2
information on matters pertaining to personnel management. The allegation of
human rights violation appears, for first time, only in appeal before the First
Appellate Authority within the BSF. This application, therefore, cannot be
construed as an application pertaining to allegation of human rights violation and
will, therefore, not bring the BSF into the realm of the RTI Act, from the
jurisdiction of which it is clearly outside, as the appellant has been correctly
advised both at the level of CPIO and Appellate Authority. We must, therefore,
conclude that the appeal is outside our jurisdiction and is hereby
dismissed.
On the other hand, we find that a fee of Rs. 10/- has been accepted at the
level of Appellate Authority, which was submitted together with her first appeal in
response to Commandant’s letter of 29.8.07. The Act allows for no fees to be
paid at the level of appeal. This amount will, therefore, be refunded to appellant
Ms. Sangeeta Aggarwal forthwith and not later than ten working days from the
date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
3.8.2009
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
3.8.2009
3