The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Paras Kr. Singh, US & CPIO and Rahul Pathak, Asstt.(DOT), Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi present through VC.

Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He further stated that sometime in the year 2013, he had applied for scholarship for pursuing Commercial Pilot License course at Saraswati Aviation Academy, Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh which is a Private Aviation Academy and he wants to know why he is not eligible for receiving the averred scholarship.

CPIO submitted that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant with respect to all his RTI Application(s). He further submitted that the Appellant was also intimated vide letter dated 03.08.2018 that the scholarship applications received for pursuing Commercial Pilot License course were duly processed and that the scholarships were issued to the initial 50 applicants on First Come-First Serve basis. He furthermore submitted that all the scholarship applications received from central and State Governments have been disposed of till the year 2017-18.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Anil Chandra Baunthiyal, Office Supdt. & CPIO, Cantonment Board, Lansdowne, Uttarakhand present on phone.

CPIO submitted that information has not been provided to the Appellant on the ground that the instant RTI Application exceeded the 500 word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012.

Decision Commission has gone through the case records and observes that CPIO has erred in denying information citing RTI Rules 2012 as the restrictions imposed in the Rules are desirable and cannot form a basis of denying information. CPIO is warned to be careful in future.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by Chaitanya Jayprakash Kadam through VC.

Respondent: S.S. Kadam, Project Director & CPIO, O/o Project Director, NHAI, PIU Solapur, Solapur present through VC.

Rep. of Appellant stated that they are not satisfied with the denial of information by the CPIO on the pretext of third party information. Upon the instance of the Commission, Rep. of the Appellant further stated that they belong to a public group called "Jai Ganesh Mandal" which has been affected due to a scuffle which took place at Pandharpur in Solapur district. He furthermore stated that the intent behind seeking the movement of the vehicles is that they are having a suspicion that the individuals who were involved in the scuffle have travelled in the averred vehicles, which happen to be Government vehicles.

Appellant has sent written submission dated 01.02.2020 reiterating his queries and re-affirming the non receipt of information from the CDRF. Respondent has submitted their written note dated 30.01.2020, which indicates the following:

 The RTI application dated 01.01.2018 was not received in the Consumer Dispute Forum, Qutub Institutional Area  Reliance has been placed on the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the then President and Member, CDRF, Qutub, which can be challenged only by way of an Appeal before the Delhi State Commission and not by filing RTI Applications against the said order.

Both parties are present for hearing and the Appellant states that he only seeks response against his specific queries, which have been evaded by the Respondent, even in their submission.

Both parties are present for hearing. The denial of information against query number 1 is found arbitrary and incorrect because the query as such could be answered with a simple yes or no. The query number 2 appears to be worded in a rather convoluted manner and as such eliciting a clear response to such a query is unlikely. Respondent states that since their department has been constituted recently, the records as sought by the Appellant are not available.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission finds the denial of information against query number 1 is inappropriate and as such set aside. The Respondent is directed to submit a comprehensive report about the number of compassionate appointments with as much details as possible, in terms of the query number 2 raised by the appellant, upon conducting a thorough search of records. In the event that no information is traceable with the respondent, a duly sworn and attested Affidavit of Sh. Manoj Jain - Dy. Director, DUSIB shall be submitted, on non judicial stamp paper, deposing about the missing public records, cause thereof and action taken in this regard. This Affidavit must be sent to the Appellant by 02.03.2020, with a copy marked to the Commission indicating compliance of the above directions. It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Jayanta Mukhopadhaya, DDG(Tech) & CPIO, Directorate General of Shipping DG(S), Kanjurmarg (East) Mumbai present through VC.

At the outset, Commission remarked that the Appellant has filed myriad of RTI Applications/Second Appeals pertaining to Marine Engineer Officer-Class-1 (MEO CL-1) examination attended by him on various dates.

It was further remarked that as it appears the Appellant has premised all these Appeals on same subject matter through incoherent queries and none of the RTI Applications conform to Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 which provides as under:

"3. Application Fee.--An application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant:..."

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Jayanta Mukhopadhaya, DDG(Tech) & CPIO, Directorate General of Shipping DG(S), Kanjurmarg (East) Mumbai present through VC.

At the outset, Commission remarked that the Appellant has filed myriad of RTI Applications/Second Appeals pertaining to Marine Engineer Officer-Class-1 (MEO CL-1) examination attended by him on various dates.

It was further remarked that as it appears the Appellant has premised all these Appeals on same subject matter through incoherent queries and none of the RTI Applications conform to Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 which provides as under:

"3. Application Fee.--An application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant:..."

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Jayanta Mukhopadhaya, DDG(Tech) & CPIO, Directorate General of Shipping DG(S), Kanjurmarg (East) Mumbai present through VC.

At the outset, Commission remarked that the Appellant has filed myriad of RTI Applications/Second Appeals pertaining to Marine Engineer Officer-Class-1 (MEO CL-1) examination attended by him on various dates.

It was further remarked that as it appears the Appellant has premised all these Appeals on same subject matter through incoherent queries and none of the RTI Applications conform to Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 which provides as under:

"3. Application Fee.--An application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant:..."

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Hemant Kumar Hem, Joint Director & CPIO, O/o Joint Director (Reception), M/o Defence Chief Security Office, 'H' Block, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi CPIO submitted that he has taken over the charge of CPIO recently and no rules/orders exist for safe keeping of employees' belongings sought at para 1 of the RTI Application. He further submitted that information sought at para 2 of the RTI Application, necessary provision of upholding integrity of employees is available in the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which is on public domain. He furthermore submitted that on information sought at para 3 of the RTI Application, the RTI Application has been transferred to CPIO, Dy.CAO (Coord), MoD under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act on 31.01.2018.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: R. Rajakannu, US & CPIO, Staff Selection Commission Headquarter, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present in person.

CPIO submitted that SSC does not issue any guidelines for Persons with Disability (PwD) candidates which are issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. He further stated that provision for scribe is made available in the notice of concerned examinations. He furthermore submitted that if directed a copy of notice of one such examination conducted by SSC containing the above provisions will be provided to the Appellant.

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present on phone.

Respondent: J.G. Moses, PSO & CPIO and Dr. Reeta, SSO II, ACPIO, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present in person.

Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO denying him information sought under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

CPIO submitted that information was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

At the instance of the Commission, CPIO submitted that the relevant RTI Application sought comprehensive DNA analysis study report referred to them by the concerned Court in connection with a case titled Kedar Nath Vs Sita Devi. He further submitted that Central Forensic Science Laboratory is a unit functioning under the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: S.D. Tiwari, JGM(BD) & CPIO and Pradip Agrawal, Manager, Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi present in person.

CPIO vide letter dated 04.02.2020 submitted that the Appellant has intimated on 03.02.2020 that the subject-matter of the instant Appeal has been settled and the same be considered as withdrawn.

Decision Commission accepts the prayer of the Appellant and closes the case The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा ) Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140 / haro.sen@nic.in हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by User 2 Date: 2020.02.13 13:09:19 IST

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent (1): S.P.R. Tripathi, US & CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi present in person.

Respondent (2): Y.K. Sharma, SP & CPIO, Special Task Force, CBI, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present in person.

Appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondents.

Respondent (1) submitted that on receipt of the instant RTI Application same was transferred to CBI on 07.02.2018 as subject matter pertained to them.

Respondent (2) submitted that appropriate reply has been provided on the RTI Application vide letter dated 21.02.2018 stating that CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where specific allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made.

1

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Sanjay Kumar, US & CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi present in person.

CPIO submitted that Commission has pronounced order on same contents of RTI application on File No. CIC/MPERS/A/2018/141407 on 06.01.2020. Decision Commission observes that the subject matter of the present Appeal and same contents of the RTI Application under reference have been already heard and decided vide File No. CIC/MPERS/A/2018/141407 on 06.01.2020. Commission finds no reason to adjudicate separately on the present matter.

1

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Lt Col Sanjeev Kumar, DCWE & CPIO, Military Engineering Services, HQ, CWE (Utilities),PIN - 900106,C/o 56 APO present in person. CPIO submitted that point wise information as sought in the Instant RTI Application has already been provided to the Appellant on 09.07.2018. Decision Commission has gone through the case records and observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant by the CPIO. Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to plead his case/contest CPIO's submission. Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO. No further action lies.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent (1): Shyam Prakash, DSP & Rep. of CPIO and S. Islam, Sr. PP, ACB, CBI, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present in person.

Respondent (2): S.P.R. Tripathi, US & CPIO, DoPT, North Block, New Delhi present in person.

Appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondents.

Respondent (1) submitted that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant on 04.04.2018 stating that information sought at para 1 of the RTI Application was outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and Information sought at paras 2 to 7 of the RTI Application was transferred to DOPT as subject matter of the said paras pertained to them.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent (1): S.P.R. Tripathi, US & CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi present in person.

Respondent (2): Y.K. Sharma, SP & CPIO, Special Task Force, CBI, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present in person.

Appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondents.

Respondent (1) submitted that on receipt of the instant RTI Application same was transferred to CBI on 07.02.2018 as subject matter pertained to them.

Respondent (2) submitted that appropriate reply has been provided on the RTI Application vide letter dated 21.02.2018 stating that CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where specific allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made.

1

The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by Neeraj Kumar Sharma (husband of the Appellant) through VC.

Respondent: Sandeep Kumar, US & CPIO and D.K. Panda, US & CPIO, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present in person.

Rep. of Appellant stated that he has not received any reply from the CPIO in response to his RTI Application.

Respondent submitted that appropriate reply dated 19.6.2018 was sent to the Appellant informing that her relevant representation has been forwarded to concerned authority in Uttar Pradesh Govt. for necessary action in the matter. He further submitted that a copy of the communication to Govt. of Uttar Pradesh dated 23.11.2017 was also sent to the Appellant alongwith the RTI reply.

1. "Details of the FCI Godown such as ownership, capacity & date of its commencement.

2. Name/father's name of the Labourers/Assistant Labourers.

3. EPF/insurance details of the Labourers.

4. List of the Labour Meths/Sardars.

5. Whether retiring room facility is available for the Labourers. Details of the medical facilities available for the Labourers.

6. Facilities available for the Labourers under the labour legislations.

7. Month-wise details of the loading/unloading of the food grains from June 2017 to August 2017.

Page 1 of 3

8. Payment released to the labourers for loading/unloading of each gunny bag of food grains."

1. "Copy of the order authorizing the Selection Committee Member, Mr. B. L. Shah, DPO for making remarks dated 31.03.2005.

2. Action taken on the remarks dated 31.03.2005.

3. Copy of the manual relied upon by Mr. B. L. Shah, DPO for conducting the trial from 23.02.2005 to 25.02.2005.

4. Copy of the letter through which the Selection Committee Member, Mr. B. L. Shah, DPO had not recommended the name of Mr. Ajay Kumar to the Trial Committee."

2. The CPIO responded on 21-03-2018 & 31-01-2020. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 12-04-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 14-05-2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action Page 1 of 4 against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.