Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00325/344/1303-SM dated 09.10.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 05.01.2009
Appellant : Dr. R.G. Taware
Respondent : Defence Research Development Organization(DRDO),
Ministry of Defence.
The Appellant is not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the respondents the following were present:-
(i) Dr. S.N.A. Asthana, Scientist 'G' (PIO)
(ii) Shri A. Appa Rao, Scientist 'G' HEMRL
(iii) Shri A.L. Dubey, Joint Director (Admn.)
(iv) Shri G. Venugopalan, JCDA (R&D), Pune
(v) Shri Vijaya Kumar B, SAO (II)
2. Dr. Taware has filed three Appeals before this Commission against the
order passed by the First Appellate Authority. Since all the three cases relate to
similar sets of information, these are being heard together.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under.
4. In all these three cases the Appellant had approached the CPIO concerned
for a number of information. Except in one case (Appeal No.344), the
information was denied on the ground that the DRDO was included in the Second
Schedule to the Right to Information Act and the provisions of that Act did not
apply to the DRDO. He preferred Appeal against these orders before the
Appellate Authority within the organization who, in each of these cases, took the
view that the information could not be disclosed as the DRDO was exempt from
disclosure of information having been included in the Second Schedule of the
Right to Information Act. The Appellant has approached this Commission in
Second Appeal in all these cases.
5. After carefully examining the request for information in all these cases as
also the reply given by the CPIO and the order of the Appellate Authority in each
case, we are of the view that the information has been rightly denied as the
DRDO is included in the Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act.
Section 24 of the Act clearly provides that nothing contained in this Act shall
apply to the Intelligence and Security Organization specified in the Second
Schedule except such information as pertaining to allegations of corruption and
human rights violation. In none of these cases, prima-facie, there is any
imputation of corruption or human rights violation. Therefore, we do not see any
wrong in the denial of information by the Public Authority in all these cases. The
Appeals are thus rejected.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar