First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1318 in DMSRDE – DRDO Hqrs

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. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 August 2013 issued by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi

 Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Public Information Officer, DRDO HQ, New Delhi. 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 Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-

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

Decision vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 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 18 July 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi for providing information regarding financial irregularities etc against Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur in development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) under GSQR-1318. Copy of the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Central Public Information Officer, DRDO HQ, New Delhi rejected the application u/s 24(1) & 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 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)          CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi rejected the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of the Public Authority, DRDO HQ. This act of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(d)          Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi 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 18 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 18 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)        Information was denied by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi on the ground of section 24(1) & 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.

(d)        The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 18 July 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)         CPIO 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 CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi, 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 18 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 18 July 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.      Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Various GSQRs, their detail specifications, cost of BPJ, requirement of Army for BPJ, Tenders for procurements of BPJ & their purchase details are already in public domain by means of Parliamentary Reports, Parliamentary Questions, Print & Electronic media, various reports from MOD etc. Hence information sought is not confidential/secret.

Besides these the 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 18 July 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 CPIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.

5.      Misuse & wrong interpretation of section 8(1) (j) by CPIO, DRDO HQ: – It appears that either CPIO did not apply his mind on content of information sought or he is supporting corrupt practices of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

Information sought in point (1) is regarding copy of the complaint of financial irregularities by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. This information (copy of complaint) is public document held by DRDO HQ when it has been received by the Public Authority of DRDO and not personal information of complainant. Therefore this information does not fall under the provision of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act.

1. Information sought in point (2) is not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
2. Information sought in point (3) is also not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
3. It is very surprised that CPIO is claiming that date of enquiry is personal information. In fact date of enquiry is not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
4. Information sought at point (5) is related to tour programme and tour details of Dr. K. Muraleedharan, Sc’G’, DOM from New Delhi to Kanpur. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of 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. Information sought at point (6) is related to Estt. Matter and not exempted u/s 24(1). Besides this the enquiry report is not a personal document or personal information as enquiry has been conducted by public servant and source of financial expenditure incurred in conducting an enquiry is public money. Hence information sought does not attract section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act.
   5. Appellant is surprised from the action of CPIO by replying in Hindi language however RTI Application was written in English. CPIO is not aware of CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001234 dated 06.02.2013 Sita Ram Vs DOPT and CIC/WB/A/2006/00117 dated 13 June 2006 JK Jain Vs DDA in which it has been decided that “Reply should be provided in the same language in which the application has been made as long as it is a local or national language”. Therefore FAA, DRDO  is kindly requested to issue instructions to CPIO to follow the CIC decisions regarding reply of RTI application in English to be replied in English only.

7.      To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)

1. CPIO, DRDO HQ is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
2. CPIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). CPIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by CPIO for rejection of RTI application is  illegal , prejudice and malafide.

8.      Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005

Appellant would also like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO  on the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.

The information sought by appellant regarding “Enquiry of financial irregularities in development of BPJ-1318” has to be provided to Parliament by DRDO, thereby the information sought   should be provided to appellant.

8.    Declaration:-

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

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DRDO HQ/2013/01

Date: 07^th September, 2013                                                                           Enclosure: two 

(1)  Letter from CPIO, DRDO HQ dated 23 Aug 2013

(2)  RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.

 Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

1. Provide copy of the complaint filed regarding financial irregularities etc against Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur in Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1318.
2. Whether any enquiry was conducted by DRDO HQ on this complaint. (Yes/No)
3. The name & designation of officer who conducted the enquiry at DMSRDE, Kanpur.
4. Provide the date on which enquiry was conducted.
   1. Provide copies of movement orders in respect to Dr. K Muraleedharan Scientist ‘G’, Director of Materials (DOM) to visit DMSRDE, Kanpur during 01 January 2013 to 30 June 2013.
   2. Provide copy of enquiry report/findings of the Enquiry Officer after enquiry was completed.

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II

It is observed that DRDO is denying 99% RTI request under shadow of Schedule – II.  This RTI request is directly related with corruption.

I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No  98E 528555

Regards