Tag Archives: Section

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 – DRDO Hqrs

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

 Sir,

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

1.    Details of appellant:-

Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com

2.    Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-

Name & Rank
Dr. A.K. Tyagi , Scientist ‘G ‘
Address
DRDO HQ
314-A, ‘B’ Block, DRDO Bhawan
New Delhi-110011

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

Decision vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 August 2013. Copy enclosed as  Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 18 July 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi for providing information regarding financial irregularities etc against Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur in development of Bullet Proof Jacket (BPJ) under GSQR-1318. Copy of the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Central Public Information Officer, DRDO HQ, New Delhi rejected the application u/s 24(1) & 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0196 dated 23 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)          CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi rejected the RTI application dated 18 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with mala-fide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of the Public Authority, DRDO HQ. This act of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(d)          Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

5.    Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

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

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

(b)        Appellant submitted an application dated 18 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 18 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

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

(d)        The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 18 July 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO.

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

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

(g)        Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.

6.    Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vide RTI Application dated 18 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.      Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 18 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on CPIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.

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

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

  1. Information sought in point (2) is not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
  2. Information sought in point (3) is also not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
  3. It is very surprised that CPIO is claiming that date of enquiry is personal information. In fact date of enquiry is not personal information as it relates to Estt. Matter of DRDO and not come under section 24(1) and 8(1) (j) as per various decisions of CIC as cited above.
  4. Information sought at point (5) is related to tour programme and tour details of Dr. K. Muraleedharan, Sc’G’, DOM from New Delhi to Kanpur. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act as pronounced in various decisions of CIC. For ready reference of FAA, appellant would like to mention some decisions of CIC regarding tour programme, travel expenses etc of a public servant.
    1. Case No. 07/IC (A)/CIC/2006 dated 6.3.2006, Dinesh Berry Vs BPCL. Decision pronounced as “The information sought by the appellant relate to the tour programme and travel expenses of a public servant, which can not be treated as personal information“
    2. Case No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000952 dated 13 April 2010, Shri Janardhana Rao Vs UCO Bank. Decision pronounced as “Copy of the tour programme and copy of TA bills are not personal information“.
    3. Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000996/SS dated 13.3.2012, U.P. Kamal Vs Coal Mine PF. Decision pronounced as “Official tours undertaken under the budgetary resources of the public authority can not be considered personal information“.
    4. Information sought at point (6) is related to Estt. Matter and not exempted u/s 24(1). Besides this the enquiry report is not a personal document or personal information as enquiry has been conducted by public servant and source of financial expenditure incurred in conducting an enquiry is public money. Hence information sought does not attract section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act.
    5. Appellant is surprised from the action of CPIO by replying in Hindi language however RTI Application was written in English. CPIO is not aware of CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001234 dated 06.02.2013 Sita Ram Vs DOPT and CIC/WB/A/2006/00117 dated 13 June 2006 JK Jain Vs DDA in which it has been decided that “Reply should be provided in the same language in which the application has been made as long as it is a local or national language”. Therefore FAA, DRDO  is kindly requested to issue instructions to CPIO to follow the CIC decisions regarding reply of RTI application in English to be replied in English only.

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

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

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

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

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

8.    Declaration:-

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

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/DRDO HQ/2013/01

Date: 07th September, 2013                                                                           Enclosure: two 

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

(2)  RTI Application dated 18 July 2013.

dmarde hqrs reply20004

 

To                                                                                                                               18th July 2013
Dr. A. K. Tyagi
Scientist ‘F’ and Head RTI Cell
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
DRDO HQ, Room No. 314-A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011                         

 Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

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

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

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

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

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No  98E 528555

Regards

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

Congrats to Dr W.Selvamurthy for assuming charges as President of Amity University

2 Comments

Bravo Congrats to Dr W.Selvamurthy  for assuming charges as President of Amity University – without having no objection from Government of India.

 

As per government of India Office Memorandum No 27012/52000-Estt(A) Dated 5thDecember 2006.

As per “The Gazette of India” Extraordinary No 568 dated 23rd November 2006 Part – II, Section-3, Sub section  (i) 

       Para 3 (a) Whether a” No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has   been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired.

                    (c) Whether there is conflict of interest between the policies of the office he has held in the last 14three years and the interest represented of work undertaken by the organization he proposed to join.

(e) Whether service record of the officer is clear, particularly with respect of integrityand dealings with non- Government Organizations.

rti replyselva1

Drdo

Tatra truck deal: Antony faces jail for neglect of duty?

Leave a comment

Manoj Mitta, TNN Apr 1, 2012, 06.13AM IST

NEW DELHI: Defence minister A K Antony had better come up with a “reasonable excuse” for waking up to corruption allegations in the Tatra deal two years after they had been brought to his notice. For, he would otherwise be liable for a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment up to six months.

The belated registration on Friday of a CBI case related to Tatra indicates Antony violated a legal duty when the bribery allegations had first been brought to his notice in writing by his party colleague Ghulam Nabi Azad in 2009 and then verbally by Army chief Gen V K Singh in 2010.

His prolonged failure to take action on the issue till it came out in the open flies in the face of the duty cast on “every person” by Section 39 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

When anybody becomes “aware of the commission of or of the intention of any other person to commit” any of the range of offences listed in Section 39 CrPC, he “shall … forthwith give information” to the nearest magistrate or police officer of “such commission or intention”.

The offences which every person is thus required to report immediately include those related to “illegal gratification”, which come under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Violations of Section 39 CrPC are punishable under Section 176 of the IPC, which prescribes a maximum six months is jail. It penalizes whoever is “legally bound” to give any information relating to “the commission of an offence or… for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence”.

The only loophole available to Antony is to cite some “reasonable excuse” for his failure to refer the Tatra issue immediately to the CBI. But then, Section 39 CrPC is so stringently worded that it casts a “burden” on the person concerned to prove the reasonableness of his excuse for not performing his duty.

It is doubtful whether Antony can cite the absence of written complaint by Singh as a “reasonable excuse” for not acting promptly. The Army chief, too, is liable under Section 39 CrPC for assuming he can leave it to Antony to initiate the legal process. Since the law requires him to report the matter, he cannot cite his communication to his superior as a “reasonable excuse”.