First Appeal – Sou moto Disclosure on officials tours of Ministers and other officials

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit  this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.    Details of appellant:-

2.    Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 8 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Tour Programmes and TA/DA Bills of Dr. AK Saxena and Dr. Vineeta Nigam. Copy of the RTI application dated 8 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)          PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 8 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(d)          Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

5.    Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.

(a)        Under the provisions of section 24(1)  of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.

(b)        Appellant submitted an application dated 8 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 8 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)        Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.

(d)        The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 8 August 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO.

(e)        Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with mala fide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.

(f)         PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.

(g)        Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.

6.    Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 8 August 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.

7.    Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1.      CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(i)        CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

(ii)       CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.

(iii)      These decisions of CIC are binding on  all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.

(iv)     In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.

1. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
2. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
3. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
4. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
5. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
6. CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
7. CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
8. CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
9. CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
10. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
11. CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)

(v)      In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.

2.        Nature of information sought is not  related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Information sought is related to official tour programmes and TA/DA Bills of Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’, DMSRDE, Kanpur. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

3.        Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.

4.        Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 8 August 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is alleged that Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his official position for sanctioning of tour programs and tour expenses of Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’.

5.        Information sought is related to tour programme and tour details of Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to tour programme & TA/DA etc are allowed under RTI Act as pronounced in various decisions of CIC. For ready reference of FAA, appellant would like to mention some decisions of CIC regarding tour programme, travel expenses etc of a public servant.

1. Case No. 07/IC (A)/CIC/2006 dated 6.3.2006, Dinesh Berry Vs BPCL. Decision pronounced as “The information sought by the appellant relate to the tour programme and travel expenses of a public servant, which can not be treated as personal information“
2. Case No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000952 dated 13 April 2010, Shri Janardhana Rao Vs UCO Bank. Decision pronounced as “Copy of the tour programme and copy of TA bills are not personal information“.
3. Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000996/SS dated 13.3.2012, U.P. Kamal Vs Coal Mine PF. Decision pronounced as “Official tours undertaken under the budgetary resources of the public authority can not be considered personal information“
4. In CIC decision in case No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000386 dated 29 June 2011, Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal Vs DRDO, CIC has allowed the tour related information. Therefore denial of information under shadow of section 24(1) is illegal.
5. Despite being a notified organisation, DRDO is following section 4 of RTI Act and proactively disclosed IPR, various service rules, procurement & recruitment rules etc on DRDO website. As per DOPT Notification F.No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11 Sept 2012 and 3rd April 2013 official tours of Ministers  & Officials should be disclosed proactively on website by all organisations. Tour Programme & tour expenses related information is not exempted for organisation notified under Schedule II as per CIC decisions as this is information related to Estt. Matter and general nature. Despite the information sought comes under section 4 of RTI Act, PIO denied information with ulterior motive & malafide.

8.    Declaration:- I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date: 07^th  September, 2013

(2)  RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.