Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Ajay Kumar vs Central Reserve Police Force … on 23 March, 2010

Central Information Commission
Shri Ajay Kumar vs Central Reserve Police Force … on 23 March, 2010
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
               Complaint No.- CIC/WB/C/2009/000260 dated: 05.05.'09
                     Right to Information Act- Section 18

Complainant:        Shri Ajay Kumar
Respondent:         Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), New Delhi.
                            Decision announced 23.3.'10
Facts

: –

By an application dated 29.12.2008 Shri Ajay Kumar of Ambala Cantt,
Haryana sought information from the Central Public Information Officer, Central
Reserve Police Force, New Delhi on the actual position of 5000 cakes of Blancho
Khaki which were supplied by his firm to Addl. DICP Group Centre, Pune, CRPF,
together with information regarding payment against that if they consumed them.
In response, e CPIO Shri S. R. Ojha, DIG, CRPF by a letter dated 03.03.2009
informed the complainant that the information sought by him was related to an
administrative matter and as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, the act will not
apply to security organizations. However, the CPIO informed the complainant
that the requisite information was called for from Provision Branch of that
Directorate and due to non availability of any records/ correspondence with the
said Branch, the same has now been called for from GC, CRPF Talegaon, Pune,
Maharashtra and when the information is received the same will be conveyed to
him. Thereafter vide letter dated 16.03.2009 the information was supplied to the
complainant as mentioned by him in his complaint petition to the Commission.
The complainant has approached this Commission alleging that the information,
as supplied by the CPIO, late by at least 44 days and whatever has been
provided is incomplete.

Admitting the complaint of Shri Ajay Kumar u/s 18(1)(e) of the Act the
Commission served notice on CPIO, CRPF, New Delhi on 01.02.2010 for
furnishing comments. In response, the CPIO has submitted his comments on
09.02.2010. The CPIO has informed the Commission “Since the information
pertained to provisioning hence was sent to Prov. Dte. to collect the information

1
and provide to CPIO, this office initially tried to obtain the information from
Provision Branch of this Directorate but when the same could not be made
available by the Provision Dte., Group Centre CRPF Pune in Maharashtra was
approached to forward the information. M/S Jammuna Dass Bool Chand was
also given an interim reply on 03.03.2009 that information sought by them was
called for from Provision Branch of this Directorate General, but due to non
availability any records/ correspondence with said Branch, the same had been
called for GC CRPF Talegaon, Pune in Maharashtra and it was further informed
that as and when the information as received the same would be conveyed to
them.

Due to reasons enumerated above, the delay in providing the information
to the firm occurred.”

The CPIO has enclosed copies of relevant correspondence that took place
between different branches of the Force and the complainant.

Decision Notice
It is relevant to mention here that the Central Reserve Police Force is
indeed an organization listed at S. No. 10 in the Second Schedule of Right to
Information Act, 2005 as dealing with security and intelligence, and therefore not
covered by the Act except for information pertaining to the allegation of
corruption and violation of human rights. The information sought by complainant
Shri Ajay Kumar has made no such allegations. The information sought by the
appellant concerns goods supplied to the force and thus is general information
and as pointed out by CPIO is an administrative issue. Hence, in light of Sec
24(1) this does not lie within the ambit of RTI Act. Nevertheless, the CPIO has
provided information in accordance with his best judgment. The issue being
outside our jurisdiction this Commission has no grounds to intercede in this
matter. In light of the above the present complainant is dismissed.

2

Announced this twenty-third day of March 2010Notice of this decision be
given free of cost to the parties.

Wajahat Habibullah
(Chief Information Commissioner)
23.03.2010

Authenticated true copy, additional copies of order shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charge prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.

Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar
Joint Registrar.

23.03.2010

3