To,
Dr. Amarpreet Duggal
FirstAppellateAuthority
ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014
Sir,
Aggrieved by decision of Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO, under the provisions of Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005, First Appeal is submitted herewith foryourkind consideration and speaking orders.
3.Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:- Letter F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014 from CPIO, ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:
(a) An application under Section 6 of RTI Act 2005 was submitted online to Shri Rajesh Nagpal, Under Secretary & CPIO on 01 August 2014. Copy of the RTI application dated 01 August 2014 is enclosed
(b) CPIO ACC Cell, Cabinet Secretariat denied/refused for information sought vide his decision letter F. No. CABST/R/2014/60302-RTI dated 29 August 2014.
(c) CPIO denied for information under the provisions of Section 24 of RTI Act 2005.
(d) Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 by Government of India.
(e) Appellant is deeply aggrieved by this decision of CPIO, ACC Cell and this leads to appellant to file first appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal and Prayer/Relief:-
(a) Information sought was related to Business & Charter of Appointment Committee of Cabinet, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. The information sought was regarding appointment of Secretary, Deptt. of Defence R&D(DRD), MOD by Appointment Committee of Cabinet, GOI.
(b) Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 by Government of India.
(c) The information sought or any part of it was not at all concerned with details of DRDO projects and therefore Section 24 does not apply on the information sought.
(d) The custodian of information sought is ACC Cell, hence denial of information is illegal under RTI Act 2005.
(e) The information was denied to conceal the facts related to irregularities & illegality in contractual appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, CC (R&D) as Secretary, DRD, MOD by ACC.
(f) Under the provisions of Section 7 subsection(8) [Disposal of Request], reproduced for your ready reference:
Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,—
(i) the reasons for such rejection;
(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and
(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.
The CPIO should provide the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred and particulars of the appellate authority but such information was not provided in his letter dated 29 August 2014. Thereby CPIO fails to perform his duties properly and violated the provisions of Section 7(8)(ii) &(iii) so that appellant could not file first appeal.
(g) As a matter of fact, an another application under RTI Act 2005 was filed on 29th January 2014 to CPIO, DOPT by appellant regarding contractual appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, DRD, MOD. (Annexure FA3)
(h) The same application under RTI Act 2005(Annexure FA3) was transferred by DOPT vide letter No. 39/3/2014-EO(SM-I) dated 16-04-2014 to CPIO, ACC Cabinet Secretariat. The information sought in the said application under RTI Act forwarded by DOPT to ACC, Cabinet Secretariat was provided to the appellant by Shri K.A. Avinash, US & Link CPIO, ACC vide letter No. F 12015/277/2014 dated 19 May 2014.(Annexure FA4)
(i) It is very surprising that same nature of information was provided by one CPIO of ACC, Cabinet Secretariat vide letter dated 19 May 2014 but now the same nature of information was denied by another CPIO, ACC on false & illegal grounds.
(j) The information sought is neither related to DRDO nor DRDO is custodian of the information sought, information sought is not at all related to charter & activities of DRDO, ACC is sole custodian of the information sought and information sought is pertaining to activities, charter & business of ACC under Allocation of Business Rules 1961.
(k) The denial of information by misusing section 24 of RTI Act 2005 by CPIO, ACC is motivated to protect the interest of particular officer and to conceal irregularities committed by ACC in appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, DRD, MOD.
(l) CPIO denied information on illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant.
Prayer /relief sought for:-
Appellant sought information vide his application dated 01 August 2014 under RTI Act to CPIO, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat and the information sought was denied by CPIO, ACC. Therefore, it is kindly prayed to FAA, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat that the orders may kindly be issued to CPIO, ACC, Cabinet Secretariat to provide the information sought by appellant in RTI Application dated 01 August 2014 based on the grounds/reasons mentioned above in Para(5).
Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
To 1st August 2014
Shri Rajesh Nagpal,
Under Secretary & CPIO,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 004
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Para (2) of appointment letter No. I2/9/2013-EO (SM.I) dated 31st May 2013 regarding appointment of Shri Avinash Chander, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller Research & Development (Missiles &Strategic Systems), DRDO as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri for a period of three years. The appointment of Shri Avinash Chander beyond his date of retirement i.e. 30.1 1.2014, would be on contract basis with the same terms and conditions as he would be entitled to Secretary (DRD) before the date of retirement.(Copy Annexed)
1.Provide copy of Contract Agreement between Government of India and Shri Avinash Chander for the reemployment on contract basis during the period 01 Dec 2014 to 31 May 2016.
2. Provide provisions and rules of Government of India under which Shri Avinash Chander was appointed on contract basis as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri after his normal retirement and completion of two extensions up to the age of 64 Years.
3. Whether an official appointed on contract after retirement can function as Head of Office for all administrative & financial matters in the department.(Yes/No)
4.File noting for appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development-cum-Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri.
5. Whether appointment after age of 64 years violates provisions of FR 56(d). (Yes/No)
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, IDAS Principal Controller PCDA (R&D), West Block-V R.K. Puram New Delhi-110066
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference
Letter No. AN/RTI CELL/2013/j-p-sharma dated 06.09.2013 issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi
Letter No. AN-I/R&D/RTI CELL/2013/J.P.Sharma dated 18.9.2013 issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO), PCDA (R&D), New Delhi. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
J.P. Sharma
Address
J.P. Sharma, Advocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound, Dehradun-248001(Uttarakhand)
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) whom RTI application was submitted:-
Name & Rank
Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDAS, Jt. CDA, CPIO
Address
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
3. Details of Central Assistant Public Information Officer(CAPIO) who replied the application filed under RTI Act
Name & Rank
Shri D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer,CAPIO
Address
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
4. Particulars of Decision/Order of CAPIO against which appeal:-
S.N.
Decision Letter No. & Date
Date
Encl. No.
1.
AN/RTI CELL/2013/j-p-sharma
06.09.2013
1
2.
AN-I/R&D/RTI CELL/2013/J.P. Sharma,
18.9.2013
2
NOTE: Application dated 20.08.2013 received to PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013
Copy of the letters received by appellant on 16.09.2013 and 28.09.2013 respectively. Copy enclosed as Enclosure-1 and Enclosure-2.
5. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 20 August 2013 was submitted to CPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi for providing information regarding “Bills passed by PCDA (R&D) forwarded by DMSRDE, Kanpur“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-3.
(b) Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO), PCDA (R&D), New Delhi transferred the application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 vide letters cited above.
(c) Under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, the application under RTI Act was illegally transferred by CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi with malafide intentions under planned conspiracy with Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi.
(d) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
6. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is a Public Authority under Central Government of India. As per information available on website of PCDA (R&D), New Delhi “The organisation of PCDA (R&D) is responsible for payment, accounting and internal/local audit functions relating to DRDO“.
(b) PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is the sole custodian of the information sought under RTI Application dated 20 August 2013. Therefore transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 is illegal.
(c) Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RTI Act, CAPIO is not authorized for transferring the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to any other public authority. CAPIO can only receive the application and forward to CPIO.
(d) Under the provisions Section 5 of RTI Act, only CPIO is authorize to transfer the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005.
(e) Vide CIC decision in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003779/LS dated 27 August 2013 (J.K. Mittal vs. Delhi Police/PHQ), Hon’ble CIC held “CPIO is the fulcrum of the RTI regime. As per section 7(1), it is the mandate of the CPIO to provide information requested for by an informationseeker.RTI application can be transferred only by the CPIO to another CPIO and not by ACPIO”.
(f) The application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 should be transferred within five days from the date of receipt of the application under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act. As mentioned above the application dated 20.08.2013 was received in office of PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013 therefore the application should be transferred up to 01 September 2013 but transfer of application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act on 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 is illegal under the provisions of RTI Act 2005.
(g) Therefore, transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 by CAPIO is illegal. Hence both letters issued by CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi are illegal and invalid under the provisions of RTI Act.
(h) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid & illegal decision of CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before First Appellate Authority (FAA).
7. Prayer /relief sought for:-
RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 submitted by appellant to CPIO, PCDA (R&D) has been illegally transferred under planned conspiracy of Public Authority of DMSRDE and Public Authority at PCDA including CPIO, CAPIO, PCDA(R&D), Main Branch, New Delhi.
Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi to allow this appeal and issue orders to CPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi to provide the full information as sought/seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 under the provisions of Section 7(1) of RTI Act.
Under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act the information should be provided to appellant with in the thirty days of the receipt of the application. Since the RTI application was received by CPIO, PCDA (R&D) on 26.08.2013 and information sought in the application should be provided by CPIO to appellant till 26.09.2013.
Since the application dated 20.08.2013 was illegally and willfully transferred by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) with malafide intentions & motives to CPIO, DRDO HQ, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi. Therefore CPIO and CAPIO both are liable to be imposed penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act and disciplinary action u/s 20(2) of RTI Act by Hon’ble CIC.
8. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
Gross Violation of Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 in transfer of application to CPIO, DRDO HQ
a. Provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act are reiterated here for your kind information.
Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,
The public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.
b. PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is a Public Authority under Central Government of India. As per information available on website of PCDA (R&D), New Delhi “The organisation of PCDA (R&D) is responsible for payment, accounting and internal/local audit functions relating to DRDO”.
c. PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is the sole custodian of the information sought under RTI Application dated 20 August 2013. Therefore transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 is illegal.
d. The information sought by appellant is not held by DRDO and DMSRDE, Kanpur as information about bills and payments related to vendors who supplied store and services to DMSRDE is held only by PCDA(R&D) for Audit purpose.
e. Therefore PCDA (R&D) is sole custodian of information sought and CPIO, CAPIO or Public Authority could not transfer the application u/s 6(3) of the Act.
CAPIO is not authorize for transfer of application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005
a. Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RTI Act , CAPIO is not authorized for transferring the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to any other public authority. CAPIO can only receive the application and forward to CPIO.
b. Under the provisions of RTI Act, only CPIO is authorize to transfer the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO of other Public Authority.
c. Vide CIC decision in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003779/LS dated 27 August 2013 (J.K. Mittal Vs. Delhi Police/PHQ), Hon’ble CIC held “CPIO is the fulcrum of the RTI regime. As per section 7(1), it is the mandate of the CPIO to provide information requested for by an information seeker . RTI application can be transferred only by the CPIO to another CPIO and not by ACPIO“.
d. Vide the CIC decision mentioned in point(c) above, Hon’ble CIC gave verdict that “As per Section 5(2), APIO is empowered only to receive RTI applications and then transmit them to the CPIO concerned. On the other hand, CPIO is empowered not only to receive RTI applications directly but also to respond tothem. Hence, the functions of the CPIO and APIO are distinct and not co-equal”.
3. Planned conspiracy of CPIO,CAPIO & Public Authority at PCDA(R&D) with Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi
It is quite evident that information sought should be provided by PCDA(R&D) as this public authority has not been placed under Second Schedule of the Act, thereby PCDA(R&D) is bound to provide the information sought to the appellant within 30 days of receipt of the application under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
Under the planned conspiracy of two public authorities PCDA(R&D) and Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur the CPIO did not provided the information to the appellant and illegally manages to transfer the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ (Public Authority – DRDO) through his CAPIOMr. D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur is involved in corruption and trying his all the best that evidences of his corruption could not be disclosed to the appellant. In promoting the corrupt practices of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE the officials at ACDA, AO (R&D), DMSRDE, Kanpur are involved. Thereby they ignored serious lapses in purchases at DMSRDE during tenure of Dr. A.K. Saxena from 01.01.2011 to till date.
I would like to expose the movement of application submitted under RTI Act by Appellant at PCDA (R&D), New Delhi. The copy of application was send to Shri VK Singh, ACDA, AO (R&D), DMSRDE, Kanpur. In the AO(R&D) Office at DMSRDE, Kanpur , one Shri Anurag Srivastava, AAO is posted since last more than 10 years in the same office however all other officials were transferred on rotation basis as per transfer policy of PCDA(R&D).
Shri Anurag Srivastava is having close association with Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE on basis of casteism as both belongs to same cast known as Kayastha. Dr. A.K. Saxena managed stay of transfer/posting of Shri Anurag Srivastava several times using his official position.
On receiving of copy of application under RTI Act submitted by Appellant, Shri Anurag Shrivastava along with Shri V.K. Singh met to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in his office and also to Shri Sarvesh , PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of them planned a conspiracy to transfer the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ so that CPIO, DRDO deny the information under the shadow and shelter of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Thereby their corrupt & anti-national activities could not be exposed.
4. Letters issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) are illegal under RTI Act 2005
The application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 should be transferred within five days from the date of receipt of the application under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act. As mentioned above the application dated 20.08.2013 was received in office of PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013 therefore the application should be transferred up to 01 September 2013 but transfer of application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act on 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 is illegal under the provisions of RTI Act 2005. Therefore the both the letters issued by CAPIO dated 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 are illegal & invalid as per provisions of Section 6(3) RTI Act 2005.
5. Letters signed by Shri D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer, CAPIO, PCDA(R&D)
As per the information available on PCDA (R&D) website pcdarnd.gov.in, Mr. D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer is CAPIO in main office. Both the letters dated 6.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 are signed by Mr. D.S. Sheoron, Accounts Officer, CAPIO.
6. Information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption
Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur is involved in corruption, financial irregularities , violation of purchase rules as specified in Purchase Management 2006 and misuse of financial power vested to him by DRDO HQ. The information sought will expose the corruption in DMSRDE and nexus between DMSRDE and ACDA, AO(R&D) Office, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Appellant is surprised from the action and role of PCDA(R&D), CPIO and CAPIO on application dated 20.8.2013 by transferring the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ under gross violation of Section 6(3) of RTI Act and verdict in various decisions of Hon’ble Central Information Commission. It appears that like ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur the officials at PCDA (R&D), New Delhi are working under pressure of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
9. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
J.P. Sharma
Advocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound,
Dehradun-248001(Uttarakhand)
Appeal No.: FA/JPS/PCDA(R&D)/2013/01
Date: 15 October, 2013
Enclosure: Three
(1) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013
(2) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013
(3) RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
(1) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013(2) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013
To, 20th August 2013Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDASJt. CDA, CPIOO/o PCDA (R&D), West BlockR.K. PuramNew Delhi-110066
Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
Kindly provide the following information under section 2(f), 2(i), 2(j) and 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
Provide the details of bills passed for payments of third party (Vendor/ supplier /Firms) claims forwarded by DMSRDE, Kanpur by O/o PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and O/o AO (R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur for the period 01/01/2013 to 31/07/2013 for the amount between One lakh to Fifty lakh for purchase of store and services with following information in each bill.
i. Particulars of store (item purchased) and service hired ii. Particular of vendor/firm to which payment was made(Cheque issued) iii. Amount of bill/cheque issued iv. Date of payment v. Mode of tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Limited/Openi. vi. Whether repeat order(Yes/No)
Details of all bills passed and cheque issued by AO(R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur and O/o PCDA(R&D) in favour of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd., New Delhi/ SM Carapace Armor, New Delhi with following information.
i. Particular of store (item purchased) and services hired. ii. Amount of bill iii. Date of payment/ cheque issued iv. Mode of Tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Repeat Order/Limited /Open
In one year how many repeat order can be issued as per Purchase Manual 2006 of DRDO/Any other Govt. Rules in case of
i. Store ii. Services
4. Whether repeat orders could be issued in case of services/AMC/ services hired like hired vehicle for transport etc as per PM 2006. (Yes/No)
5. If answer to point (4) is yes then provide the copy of said rule. 6. Whether M/s SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd/SM Carapace Armor/or any other subsidiary of SM Group is registered with DMSRDE, Kanpur or with HEMRL, Pune (Yes/No)
7. If answer to point (6) is yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by DMSRDE, Kanpur or HEMRL, Pune.
8. Provide the details/category under which any subsidiary firm under SM Group New Delhi like SM Pulp/SM Carapace is registered with HEMRL / DMSRDE as per Rule 3.2 of PM 2006. 9. If registered at HEMRL/DMSRDE then date of registration. 10. Copies of Supply Orders issued to SM Pulp Packaging/SM Carapace Armor for the Financial years
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
Inspection of documents/records for passing the bills of SM Pulp Packaging and SM Carapace Armor , New Delhi for the FY 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2012-2013.
An IPO of Rs. 10 No. 16F 966245 is enclosed as application fee.
Date – 20th August 2013
( J P. Sharma)Advocate Chamber No.64, First floorOpposite Bar Council OfficeCourt CompoundDehradun-248001Uttarakhand
copy
Shri V.N. Singh, ACDA
AO (R&D), DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECSFirst Appellate Authority, DRDORTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: No.DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3rd September 2013
Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of Central Public Information Officer, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.
The reply of CPIO, DRDO, is completely confusing, misleading, incorrect, unjustified and willful not give any information, does not following the spirit of RTI Act 2005.
I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-
Name & Rank
Dr. Sangeeta Khare , Scientist ‘G ‘
Address
DEAL,Raipur Road, Dehradun-248001
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:
Decision vide letter No. DEAL/RTI/0010/2013 dated 3rd September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun was promoted wef 1st July 2012.
In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO.Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL “his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)
Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.
The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to ShSurendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.
The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism and castism. (Copy enclosed)
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
RTI request sent to DoPT and DoPT furnished partly information which is also mark as confidential, but after result it was a open document.(Copy Enclosed)
DoPT transferred my RTI request to Ministry of Defence for rest information vide their letter no F.No/29/38/2013-EOSM-II Dated 15th July 2013.
Subsequently MOD transferred to RTI Cell, DRDO vide Mof D ID No 21/(3)/2013(1083)/ D/(RTI) Dt 5/7/2013
Subsequently RTI Cell, DRDO transferred to CPIO,RAC, DRDO vide RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 10th July 2013
Subsequently CPIO,RAC, DRDO informed me vide letter no RAC/03/RTI/95/2013 Dated 1st August 2013 that my application sent back to RTI Cell, DRDO for further action. (Copy enclosed)
Unexpectedly I have received 6th September 2013 a letter from CPIO,DEAL, Dehardun stated that they received a letter from CPIO,RAC, DRDO on 20th August 2013 (no letter no reference) stated that the information (Biodata) of Sh R K Agarwal marked as confidential, hence it cannot be disclosed (copy enclosed)
As Sh R K Agarwal worked in DEAL in various projects and “only those project are classified as secret/confidential which have been sanction under staff project (ARMY/Air force/Navy/ Services Branch, the rest of the project sanctioned to DRDO comes under R&D Projects.
Sh R K Agarwal himself quote in DRDO News Letter (September 2012) that he was associated with Project “NARAD” his claim was totally false and supported by Sh R C Agarwal, Director, DEAL for his promotion to Scientist ‘H’ and this act come under corruption. (“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”)
Corruption – Giving or obtainingadvantagethroughmeanswhich are illegitimate, immoral, and/or inconsistent with one’sdutyor therightsof others. Corruption oftenresultsfrom patronage)
viii. DRDO is protecting Sh R K Agarwal for his false claim and to stop this corrupt practice in DRDO, it is very well require exposing false claims especially in R&D atmosphere because these practices demoralize young scientists. As CPIO, DEAL already committed in one RTI reply no information and document evidence is available in DEAL regarding Sh R K Agarwal’s claim.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vide RTI Application dated 28th May 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DEAL,Dehradun. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO,DEAL, Dehradun to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 28th May 2013 (Copy Enclosed)
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.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
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. 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.
3. 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, DEAL, Dehradun
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013(2) DoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013(3) MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013(4) CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013(5) CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1st August 2013(6) CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013My RTI Application to CPIO,DoPT, New Delhi dated 28th May 2013
To 28th May 2013
The Under Secretary (RR- II )
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Department of Personnel and Training
Room No. 268 – B , North Block
New Delhi- 110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun
As per SRO- 36 dated 9t May 2011( FileNo. DHRDn6205IDRDSlRRlClP/10/1022/D(R&D))
Para 2
“(iv) The Peer Committee as specified in Schedule ID shall assess suitability for appointment of Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist in Defence Research and Development Service”.
In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO. Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL “ his main contribution has been the development of NARAD, the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).
Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)
Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.
The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.
The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism and castism. (Copy enclosed)
Kindly provide the following informations under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005
The certified copy of Sh R K Agarwal’s credentials submitted to then Peer Committee by DRDO for consideration for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist).
The certified copy Peer Committee recommendation for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) in respect of Sh R K Agarwal
Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a 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 the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II
“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”
Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order 98E 528553
Regards,
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com , website- www.corruptionindrdo.comDoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013MoD letter Dated 5 th July 2013CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013 CPIO, RAC, letter dated 1st August 2013CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,
Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS, First Appellate Authority, DRDO
RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011
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:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013
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 motiveunder 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.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
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.
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“
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“.
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“
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.
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.
Enclosure: two (1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013(2) RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.To Date:08thAugust, 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’CPIO,DMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-208013
Sir,
This is with reference to DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11thSeptember 2012 and DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd April, 2013 on Subject “Suo motu disclosure on official tours of Ministers and other officials“. It has been observed that information regarding official tours of Director, DMSRDE and other Scientist ‘G’ & above posted in DMSRDE are not available on DRDO/ DMSRDE website in compliance of above mentioned DOPT Office Memorandum.
Kindly provide the following information under section 2(f), 2(j) and 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
Provide soft copy of data / data in electronic form stored in database kept on server/computer used for storing data of tour programs using software for preparing TA/DA advance bills, final claim settlement of tours and Movement Orders in Finance & Accounts Division DMSRDE for tour program/Temporary Duty move data from 01st January, 2011 to 31st July 2013 in respect of all Scientists and officials of DMSRDE in Compact Disc (CD).
Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur from 01 January 2011 to 31 July 2013.
III. Copies of final claim along with all enclosure for claiming TA/DA like rail/air tickets, bills for Lodging And Boarding, taxi bills etc.
Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ from 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2013
III. Copies of all Movement Orders
IV. Copies of final claim along with all enclosure for claiming TA/DA like rail/air tickets, bills for Lodging and Boarding, taxi bills etc.
Provide temporary duty completion report submitted by Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ duly verified from the concerned official at place of temporary duty.
Amount that has been paid to Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE for TA and DA separately for his all official tours/temporary duty moves from 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2013.
Reasons for not uploading official tour data of Director , DMSRDE, Kanpur and all Scientist ‘G’ & above on website of DRDO/DMSRDE as per orders of Government of India vide OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11th September 2012 and OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd April, 2013.
Copies of all official tour programs
Copies of movement orders for all tours
Copies of all Minute Sheets/Justifications approved by Director for Temporary Duty /Official Tour.
Copies of all official tour programs
An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 16 F 964388) is enclosed
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS,First Appellate Authority, DRDO RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/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:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name &Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE,GT Road,Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/41/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 25 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Book Procurement at Technical Library, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Copy of the RTI application dated 25 July 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/101/41/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 25 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder 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 25 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 25 July 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 25 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) 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 25 July 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 25 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.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
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“.
Subject/nature of information sought is related to procurement of books in Library. This information is pertaining to Estt. Matter and it has been decided by PIO, DMSRDE that the information sought is not exempted then PIO should provide complete information as sought in application dated 25 July 2013 but PIO did not provided complete information rather it appears that he concealed the information so that corruption in procurement of books could not be exposed.
3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter & procurement of books. Information related to purchase of books & periodicals has been allowed by CIC in various cases like case No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001219 dated 9.8.2012 Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”.
4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 25 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 PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is quite evident from the reply of PIO that corruption was made in procurement of books by misusing the DRDO Rules for Purchase.
In reply dated 26 Aug 2013 at point (4), PIO informed “Protected Govt. Documents” for Supply orders of books. Purchase related any document from indent to supply order & bills etc are not protected documents as claimed by PIO. As per various CIC decisions the purchase related files were allowed for inspection of records and all information related to purchase were allowed as purchase have angle of corruption. These were denied so that the corruption in procurement of books could not come out as it will discloses the discount percentage provided by suppliers in two different financial years. In fact in the FY 2010-2011 the maximum discount offered was 35% while in 2012-2013 the discount offered was 10%. This establish that 25% of total purchase i.e. Rs. 366952.00 was taken as commission by the concerned officers & authorities responsible for purchase of books on low discount.
COMPARISON OF PROCUREMENT OF BOOKS IN DMSRDE
SN
Year
Fund Exp.
Mode of procurement
Rules applied
Director
1.
2009-10
NIL
–
–
Dr KUB Rao
2.
2010-11
Rs. 94833
Limited
PM-2006
“
3.
2011-12
NIL
–
–
Dr AK Saxena
4.
2012-13
Rs. 1467810
No tendering, directly issue supply order
DRDO Lib. Manual,1999
Dr AK Saxena
By comparison of data provided by PIO in point(1) of his reply dated 26 August 2013 regarding fund expenditure in various financial years it is crystal clear that corruption took place in FY 2012-2013 where all of sudden books of Rs. 1467810.00 has been procured while in previous years it was “NIL” or very less Rs. 94833.00 only in 2010-11.
Data in above table indicates that demand of books which was NIL (Zero) in 2009-10 and 2011-12 has increased all of sudden near about to the Rupees 15 Lakh. As compared to purchase of books in FY 2010-11 the hike in 2012-13 is about 15.5 times. This indicates that books were purchased without any need and requirement in 2012-2013 and this amount huge loss to public money. Where the 25% discount on Rs. 1467810.00 i.e. Rs. 366952.00 has gone?
DRDO is having very old manual issued on 11 January 1999 regarding Management of Library/TIC of DRDO. This manual is called as “DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres“. After issuance of Purchase Manual -2006 of DRDO this old Manual became ineffective & obsolete. Most of the DRDO Labs/Estt. are using Purchase Manual for procurement of books, Print Journal and Online E-Journals. DMSRDE is also using PM-2006 from last six years for procurement of books, Print Journal and Online E-Journals as can be verified from records of Technical Library of DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of sudden making purchase of books on the basis of old manual smacks malafide intentions and leads corruption in purchase of books in FY 2012-2013. In fact in year 2012-2013 provisions of DRDO Manual of Procedures for Management of Libraries & Technical Information Centres has not been fully followed. Purchase procedure of DRDO Manual are for small & urgent procurement not for big procurements in tune of lakh or crores.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
To, 25thJuly 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’CPIO, DMSRDEGT Road, Kanpur-208013
Hello,
Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
Fund expenditure for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year
2009-2010 ii. 2010-2011 iii. 2012-2013
2009-2010 ii. 2010-2011 iii. 2012-2013
Mode of tendering for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year viz (Single Tender, Limited Tender/Open Tender)
If mode of tendering in any Financial Year from years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 was limited tender then provide the copies of CST(Comparative Statement of prices of books with discount % offered by suppliers) approved by Library Committee and Director for that particular year.
Copies of supply orders placed for supply of Scientific and Technical books in Technical Library in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
Discount offered by various suppliers on procurement of Indian and Foreign books with name of suppliers and discount offered by them, when mode of tendering was Single Tender or Limited Tender.
Copies of bills submitted by suppliers for getting payment against supply of books in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
This is relevant to mentioned here that the information sought is related to establishment matters (Purchase) and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act.
Central Information Commission 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.
However the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECSFirst Appellate Authority, DRDORTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/44/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:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name &Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/44/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 25 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) – 1293. Copy of the RTI application dated 25 July 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/101/44/Letter_2013 dated 20 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 25 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder 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 25 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 25 July 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 25 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) 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 25 July 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 25 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 (DRDO etc.), 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.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
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/ Purchase & procurement/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 25 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 PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and not pertaining to allegation of corruption.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013(2) RTI Application dated 25 July 2013To, 25thJuly 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’CPIO, DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013
Hello,
This is with reference to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence Report 2009-10 & 2010-11 and News published in print/electronic media regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1293) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
The date on which GSQR-1293 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
The date on which DMSRDE started to work on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293 and the date on which BPJ-1293 developed successfully.
PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1293.
Whether any team was constituted for development of BPJ-1293? If yes then provide name of the team members (Scientists, Technical Officers and Scientific Assistants etc) who worked on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1293?
If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
If no Project was sanctioned from DRDO HQ for BPJ as per GSQR-1293 then from which head (Build-up etc) funds were arranged for Development and Fabrication of BPJ-1293?
Provide total expenditure incurred in procurement of items(matrials) for development of BPJ-1293 including expenditure incurred on TA/DA to Officers & Employees, Government Transport and hired transport separately.
Provide copies of DRDO.MM.06 (demand) and copies of supply orders for purchase of items/materials and services hired for development of BPJ-1293.
Purchase of materials, items and services hired for fabrication of BPJ-1293 were made under which type of tendering process (Single Tender /Limited Tender/Open Tender/Global Tender)?
Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1293 in the
following format :-
Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1293.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund for TA/DA in Temp. Duty of officers and staff involved in development of BPJ-1293 for visiting site of vendor involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1293 or to other places for work related to BPJ-1293.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund on Govt. Transport and hired transport for transporting the materials up to the site of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd at New Delhi/Palwal.
Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1293.
Whether SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd is registered with DMSRDE. If yes then provide copy of Registration Certificate issued by DMSRDE to S. M. Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd.
Whether any award was given to BPJ-1293 team/group or Scientist for successful development of BPJ-1293 under Laboratory Level Award under DRDO Award Scheme for 2010-2011. If so then provide the
Name of Scientists/Individual Scientist getting this award.
Amout of award in Rupees for Laboratory Scientist of the year award.
Copy of the minute sheet sanctioned by Director for this award.
Copy of the letter forwarded by Head of the Division with name(s) of Scientists to Technical Coordination.
Copy of the recommendation/proceeding of Award Committee constituted by Director for 2010-2011.
21. Whether facilities for fabrication of BPJ are available in Kanpur (Yes/No).
22. M/s M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd , Kanpur is also working on development/fabrication of BPJ at Kanpur. Provide the reasons on the ground of which DMSRDE did not utilized services of M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur for development of BPJ-1293 using Limited Tendering Process in order to save expenditure on TA/DA of Officials and hired Transport?
23. Copy of certificate issued by TBRL, Chandigarh for successful testing of BPJ developed by DMSRDE under GSQR-1293
24. Whether these BPJ-1293 was under gone Quality Control/Assurance test by QAG, DMSRDE. If so then how many BPJ-1293 were tested by QAG, DMSRDE.
25. Whether this BPJ-1293 was tested by another agency like CFSL Chandigarh etc? (Yes/No) If yes then provide the name of agency.
26. How many BPJ-1293 was fabricated by SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd and total amount paid to SM Pulp Packaging Pvt. Ltd for the fabrication of said BPJ-1293?
27. Copy of the supply order placed for fabrication of mould/procurement of mould for BPJ-1293.
28. Whether user trials were conducted by Army for BPJ-1293. (Yes/No) If yes then how many BPJ-1293 were submitted to AHQ for unit/field testing?
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,
Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS
First Appellate Authority, DRDO
RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011
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:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-
Name & Rank
Dr. A.K. Tyagi , Scientist ‘G ‘
Address
DRDO HQ
314-A, ‘B’ Block, DRDO Bhawan
New Delhi-110011
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 motiveunder 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.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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“
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“.
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“.
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.
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)
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“.
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.
To 18thJuly 2013Dr. A. K. TyagiScientist ‘F’ and Head RTI CellCentral Public Information Officer (CPIO)DRDO HQ, Room No. 314-A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi-110011
Hello,
Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
Provide copy of the complaint filed regarding financial irregularities etc against Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur in Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1318.
Whether any enquiry was conducted by DRDO HQ on this complaint. (Yes/No)
The name & designation of officer who conducted the enquiry at DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Provide the date on which enquiry was conducted.
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.
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.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS, First Appellate Authority, DRDO RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/40/Letter_2013 dated 20 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:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE
GT Road
Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/40/Letter_2013 dated 20 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 PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) – 1318. Copy of the RTI application dated 18 July 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/101/40/Letter_2013 dated 20 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 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 motiveunder 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 18 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 18 July 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 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) 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 18 July 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 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.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
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/ Purchase & procurement/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 PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
To, Date 18thJuly 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’Public Information Officer (PIO)DMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-208013
Hello,
This is with reference to News published in print/electronic media in May 2012 and DRDO Newsletter Issue of April 2012 regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1318) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
The date on which GSQR-1318 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
The date on which DMSRDE started to work on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318 and the date on which BPJ-1318 developed successfully.
PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1318.
Whether any team was constituted for development of BPJ-1318? If yes then provide name of the team members (Scientists, Technical Officers and Scientific Assistants etc) who worked on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1318?
If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
If no Project was sanctioned from DRDO HQ for BPJ as per GSQR-1318 then from which head (Build-up etc) funds were arranged for Development and Fabrication of BPJ-1318?
Provide total expenditure incurred in procurement of items for development of BPJ-1318 including expenditure incurred on TA/DA to Officers & Employees, Government Transport and hired transport separately.
Provide copies of DRDO.MM.06 (demand) and copies of supply orders for purchase/services hired for development of BPJ-1318.
Purchase of materials, items and services hired for fabrication of BPJ-1318 were made under which type of tendering process (Single Tender /Limited Tender/Open Tender/Global Tender)?\
Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1318 in following format
Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1318.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund for TA/DA in Temp. Duty of officers and staff involved in development of BPJ-1318.
Total expenditure incurred from public fund on Govt. Transport and hired transport for transporting the materials up to the site of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd at New Delhi/Palwal.
Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1318.
Whether SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd is registered with DMSRDE. If yes then provide copy of Registration Certificate issued by DMSRDE to S. M. Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd.
Whether any patent has been filed for development of BPJ-1318? if yes then provide the copy of patent filed including the name of inventors.
Whether facilities for fabrication of BPJ are available in Kanpur (Yes/No).
M/s M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur is also working on development/fabrication of BPJ at Kanpur. Provide the reasons on the ground of which DMSRDE did not utilized services of M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur for development of BPJ-1318 using Limited Tendering Process?
Copy of certificate issued by TBRL, Chandigarh for successful testing of BPJ developed by DMSRDE under GSQR-1318.
Whether these BPJ-1318 were tested by another agency like CFSL Chandigarh etc? (Yes/No) If yes then provide the name of agency.
How many BPJ-1318 was fabricated by SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd and total amount paid to SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd for the fabrication of said BPJ-1318?
Whether user trials were conducted by Army for BPJ-1318. (Yes/No)
AHQ (Army) accepted BPJ-1318 (Yes/No).
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. Find the application fee for the request attached with this application
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 12F 470723
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS, First Appellate Authority, DRDO RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/39/Letter_2013 dated 20 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Hello,
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.
Details of appellant:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE
GT Road
Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/39/Letter_2013 dated 20 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 17 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding GSQRs of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ). Copy of the RTI application dated 17 July 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/101/39/Letter_2013 dated 20 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 17 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder 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 17 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 17 July 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 17 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) 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 17 July 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 17 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.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
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 17 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 PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
To, 17thJuly 2013Shri Sarvesh KumarScientist ‘F’ & Public Information Officer (PIO)DMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-208013
Hello,
This is with reference to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence Report 2009-10 and 2010-11, News published in print/electronic media in May 2012 and DRDO Newsletter Issue of April 2012 regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1318) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
How many GSQRs (General Staff Qualitative Requirement) for development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) have been issued to DMSRDE, Kanpur (DRDO) by AHQ (Army) till date?
Provide all GSQR numbers given by AHQ for development of BPJ to DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Provide the copies of sanctioning letter issued from AHQ to DRDO for these GSQRs for development of BPJ by DMSRDE.
Provide total expenditure incurred in development of Bullet Proof Jacket in DMSRDE right from sanctioning of first GSQR for BPJ up to present(current) GSQR for BPJ in following format:
(i) GSQR No.
(ii) Date of sanction
(iii) Date of closure/completion
(iv) Expenditure incurred
How much amount has been expenditure in DMSRDE in creation & setup of the facilities and infrastructure development for R&D of BPJ under these GSQRs given by AHQ to DMSRDE till date?
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.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001209
Appellant Shri Rajiv Chauhan Public Authority DRDO Date of hearing 09.08.2012 Date of decision 09.08.2012
Facts :-
1. Heard today dated 09.08.2012. Appellant present. DRDO is represented by Shri
Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.
2. It is the appellant’s contention that Ms. Geeta, daughter of Dr. W. Silvamurthy, former Director, DIPAS, DRDO, New Delhi, was selected as Scientist ‘c’ in 2004. It is his allegation that said Ms. Geeta was not qualified to be selected as Scientist ‘E’ as she did not hold the Ph.D degree at that time. He also alleges that she obtained the Ph.D. Degree from Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, in an irregular manner. In this connection, vide RTI application dated 7.10.2011, the appellant had sought information on 05 paras. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 2.11.2011 wherein he refused to disclose any information on the ground that DRDO is an exempted organisation.
3. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Shri Mishra submits that he has not received a copy of the appeal memo and, therefore, it is not possible for him to respond to it off-hand. Besides, he also submits that Chairman, RAC, had conducted an inquiry into the matter and in report dated 24.12.2010 had held that the process of recruitment was in order. The Commission cannot comment on the validity of allegations made by the appellant. Even so, in my opinion, the requested information cannot be denied to the appellant only for the reason that DRDO is an exempted organisation. In fact, transparency demands that the records relating to the inquiry conducted by Chairman, RAC, are allowed to be inspected by the appellant or his representative. I order accordingly.
5. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks time.
Sd/- ( M.L. Sharma ) 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.
( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Scientist ‘F’ & CPIO, DRDO, RTI Cell, 314-A, B-Block, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi-110105.
