Tag Archives: Room No. 240/B

Drdo

First Appeal – Parking – DMSRDE

1 Comment

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

To,
  Shri Suranjan 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/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 issued by CPIO, 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:-applicant2.   Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-cpio kanpur

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

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 received by appellant on 04 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Parking“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of Corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)          It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 04 October 2013 that “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”.

(d)          In point (c) (1) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur has not ordered for construction of any vehicle parking stand inside DMSRDE not being constructed”. It was also mentioned “Other information related to vehicle stand are also irrelevant and not applicable”.

(e)          In point (d)(2) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Regarding CSD Canteen, its functioning has started from 21st April 1977 and running continuously. The other information asked has no relevance with the allegations of Corruption. It is a social welfare activity and run in authorized manner with manually agreed terms & conditions of DMSRDE and MES office of, DMSRDE, Kanpur”.

(f)           CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 04 October 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(g)          Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CPIO, 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 04 October 2013 under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 04 October 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)        Information was denied by CPIO, 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 04 October 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 as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.

(e)       Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant for 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, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.

6.   Prayer /relief sought for:-

  1. Information sought vides RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.
  2. Direction may kindly be issued to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions.
    1. 7.   Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
    2. 1.     CIC decisions on notified organizations 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)     Information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter

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

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

(vi)     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 “Parking”. 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 is 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 04 October 2013. Information sought is 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. In case the prima facie evidences of Corruption are available the appellant will approach to CVC/CBI not file RTI to get information pertaining to allegations of Corruption?

                  i.        It is alleged that Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his powers to construct/erect the parking shade near CSD Canteen. It has been accepted by Director, DMSRDE vide Minute Sheet No.  AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 issued by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl. Director (Admin).  Vide this order “all officers & employees of DMSRDE were ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shades near CSD Canteen with effect from 01 October 2013”. Again Chief Security Officer issued ION dated 03.10.2013 on behalf of Director regarding Car-Parking near Admin. Building. Again an ION was issued by Dr. DN Tripathi, Addl. Director(Admin) regarding parking area near CSD Canteen.

                ii.        This parking shade/vehicle stand was not constructed by MES or CCE (R&D) North. It was constructed by Director, DMSRDE using private contractor of his favor M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur. Thereby CPIO provided false information vides his letter dated 29 October 2013.

              iii.        MES(Military Engineering Services) and CCE(R&D) are the only agencies authorize for any construction of buildings , to execute minor & major work in buildings, construction /erect of shades/parking area etc. in Technical & Residential area of DMSRDE.

               iv.        The source of fund used to erect two shades was from one project fund and not from build-up fund. Project fund cannot be used for construction work. Hence Dr. AK Saxena, Director misused his powers to illegal and unauthorized construction of two parking shades near CSD Canteen inside the Technical Area of DMSRDE, to give undue advantage to M/s Gupta Construction, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur with vested interest.

                 v.        All supply orders for purchase of material used to erect the parking shades were issued to M/s Gupta Constructions who is neighbor to Dr. AK Saxena residence at Gandhi Gram, Kanpur.

               vi.        Misuse of powers for personal gains, unauthorized construction and misuse of funds is clear case of Corruption. Documents are available in records with DMSRDE which can be verified by FAA.

             vii.        It is quite evident from Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 that there exists building of CSD Canteen in DMSRDE near newly constructed parking area/shade.

            viii.        The nomenclature of building in which CSD canteen is running is CHEM STORE, as per MES record. Director, DMSRDE is using this building in unauthorized manner to run CSD Canteen in this building. CSD Canteen is a profitable URC under CSD hence it should pay rent as well as electrical charges to MES. In this connection MES also issued notice to CSD Canteen for payment of electrical charges and recently cut down the power of CSD  for fifteen days, thereby CSD was closed for about fifteen days.

               ix.        Information sought is related to “Parking”. This information is not related to any scientific/technical/strategic matter. Therefore information related to contract, supply order, purchase, construction and manufacturing etc. is disclosable under RTI Act, CIC decisions mentioned above and even by FAA, DRDO.

8.   Declaration:-

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

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21- Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/Parking

Date: 08 November, 2013                                          

 Enclosure: Two 

(1)  Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 29 October 2013.

(2)  RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.

 

Drdo

First Appeal – Sh R K Agarwal’s False Claim

Leave a comment

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:  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:-

  1. 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)
  2. 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.
  3. Subsequently  MOD transferred to RTI Cell, DRDO vide Mof D ID No 21/(3)/2013(1083)/ D/(RTI) Dt 5/7/2013
  4. Subsequently  RTI Cell, DRDO transferred to CPIO,RAC, DRDO vide  RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 10th July 2013
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. 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 obtaining advantage through means which are illegitimate, immoral, and/or inconsistent with one’s duty or the rights of others. Corruption often results from 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.

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

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

2.      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.

 
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com  

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/RKA/DRDO HQ/2013/03

Date: 3rd October, 2013                                           

 Enclosure: 

(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 2013
 
My 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

  1. 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).
  2. 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 Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id  prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  website- www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
DoPT reply Dated 15th july 2013
dopt reply0001
dopt reply0002
dopt reply0003
 
MoD letter Dated  5 th July 2013
MOD replyrk0002
 
 
CPIO, DRDO Hqrs letter Dated 18th July 2013
reply drdohq
 
 CPIO, RAC, letter  dated 1st August 2013
rac reply
 
CPIO, DEAL letter dated 3rd September 2013
deal reply
Drdo

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

2 Comments

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 motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

5.    Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.    Prayer /relief sought for:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com  Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com   
 
Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/06

Date: 07th  September, 2013

 Enclosure: two 
(1)  Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013
(2)  RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.dmarde reply20002
 
To                                                                                                                    Date: 08th August, 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’
CPIO,DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-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

  1. 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).
  2. Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur from 01 January 2011 to 31 July 2013.
    1.    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.
  3. Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ from 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2013
    1.    III.        Copies of all  Movement Orders
    2.   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.
  4. Provide temporary duty completion report submitted by Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ duly verified from the concerned official at place of temporary duty.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  1. Copies of all official tour programs
  2. Copies of movement orders for all tours
  1. Copies of all Minute Sheets/Justifications approved by Director for Temporary Duty /Official Tour.
  2. Copies of all official tour programs

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 16 F 964388) is enclosed

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
                                                                               

Enclosures

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16 F 964388  as application Fee.
  2. DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11th September 2012
  3. DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd April,
Drdo

First Appeal – Procurement of Scientific & Technical Books in Technical Library of DMSRDE

1 Comment

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 motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

  1. 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.

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

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
    1. 8.    Declaration:-

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

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com
Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com   

 Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/05

Date: 07th September, 2013

Enclosure: two 

(1)  Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013

(2)  RTI Application dated 25 July 2013.dmarde reply20001

To,                                                                                                                 25th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE
GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. Fund expenditure for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year
  2. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  3. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  4. Mode of tendering for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year viz (Single Tender, Limited Tender/Open Tender)
  5. 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.
  6. Copies of supply orders placed for supply of Scientific and Technical books in Technical Library in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

Enclosed-      Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470729

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal   
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,    
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com , www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo

First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket under GSQR-1293 by DMSRDE

1 Comment

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/101/44/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 motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

5.    Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

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

(b)        Appellant submitted an application dated 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.

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

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

2.      Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

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

Besides these the information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

3.      Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ 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.

 
 
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com
Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com   

 

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/03

Date: 07th September, 2013

 Enclosure: two 

(1)  Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013
(2)  RTI Application dated 25 July 2013
dmarde reply20003
 
To,                                                                                                                           25th July 2013
Shri 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.

  1. The date on which GSQR-1293 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
  2. Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  3. Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  4. 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.
  5. PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1293.
  6. 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.
  7. Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1293?
  8. If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
  9. Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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)?
  14. Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1293 in the

following format :-dmsrde table

  1. Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1293.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1293.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?

29.  AHQ (Army) accepted BPJ-1293 (Yes/No)

Enclosed-           Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470728

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal   
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008, Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,   
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com , www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo

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

Leave a comment

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 motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

5.    Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

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

(b)        Appellant submitted an application dated 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.

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

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

2.      Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

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

Besides these the information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

3.      Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ 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.

  1. 8.    Declaration:-

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

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                 
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com
Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com   

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/02

Date: 07th  September, 2013                                                                                        

 

 Enclosure: two 

(1)  Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 20 Aug 2013

(2)  RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.dmsrdertireplyof 18th july rti

To,                                                                                           Date 18th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’
Public Information Officer (PIO)
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-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. 

  1. The date on which GSQR-1318 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
  2. Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
  3. Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
  4. 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.
  5. PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1318.
  6. 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.
  7. Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1318?
  8. If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
  9. Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1318.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. Provide copies of DRDO.MM.06 (demand) and copies of supply orders for purchase/services hired for development of BPJ-1318.
  13. 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)?\
  14. Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1318 in following format
  15. Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1318.
  16. Total expenditure incurred from public fund for TA/DA in Temp. Duty of officers and staff involved in development of BPJ-1318.
  17. 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.
  18. Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1318.
  19. 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.
  20.  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.
  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-1318 using Limited Tendering Process?
  23. Copy of certificate issued by TBRL, Chandigarh for successful testing of BPJ developed by DMSRDE under GSQR-1318.
  24. Whether these BPJ-1318 were tested by another agency like CFSL Chandigarh etc? (Yes/No) If yes then provide the name of agency.
  25. 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?
  26. Whether user trials were conducted by Army for BPJ-1318. (Yes/No)
  27. 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

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala RaipurDehradun-248008 
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879, 
e-mail id – prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo

First Appeal – Development of Bullet Proof Jacket in DMSRDE

1 Comment

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.

  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/101/39/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 motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

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

  1. 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.

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

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

2.      Subject/nature of information sought is already in public domain and not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

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

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

4.      Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 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.

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                 
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Landline -0135-2787750
Mobile – 9411114879
Email – prabhudoon@gmail.com
Website – www.corruptionindrdo.com   

 Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/01

Date: 07th September, 2013                                                                                                          Enclosure: two 

(1)  Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 20 Aug 2013

(2)  RTI Application dated 17 July 2013.dmsrdertireply0002

To,                                                                                                     17th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’ & Public Information Officer (PIO)
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-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.

  1. 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?
  2. Provide all GSQR numbers given by AHQ for development of BPJ to DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  3. Provide the copies of sanctioning letter issued from AHQ to DRDO for these GSQRs for development of BPJ by DMSRDE.
  4. 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

  1. 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.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No  98E 528555

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website – www.corruptionindrdo.com