Policy relating to compensation payable to the owners of property occupied by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) without consent of owner was sought - Respondent: IB is an exempted organisation under Chapter VI section 24(1) - CIC: denial upheld
1 Aug, 2014ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 20.04.2013 under the RTI Act seeking information regarding the policy relating to compensation payable to the owners of property occupied by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) without consent of the owner. CPIO responded on 07.05.2013 stating that IB is an exempted organisation under Chapter VI section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act. Appellant filed first appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 07.06.2013. FAA vide order dated 24.06.2013 upheld the decision of the CPIO. Appellant filed this present appeal on 20.09.2013.
Hearing
2. Appellant and respondent were present before the Commission.
3. Appellant referred to the RTI application and stated that he was seeking information regarding the policy followed by IB relating to compensation to be given by IB to the individuals whose property had been occupied by IB without consent of the owner.
4. Appellant stated that their property was occupied by the IB for 18 years without their consent and without paying rent. Appellant stated that their property was rented to Army in 1960, and thereafter, the army had vacated the premises and handed it to the IB without their consent. IB had vacated the premises in 2008.
5. Appellant stated that he wanted to know the rules governing payment of compensation by IB for property occupied by IB without approval or consent of owner of the property.
6. Respondent stated Intelligence Bureau is an exempted organisation under Chapter VI section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act except for information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights. Respondent stated that the respondent was not obliged to provide any information sought by the appellant.
7. Appellant stated that he was deprived of his property without any lawful authority. Appellant stated that there can be no justification to deny him the information sought in the RTI application.
8. Appellant stated that the information sought by him was civil in nature where their property was occupied by Intelligence Bureau without payment of rent. Appellant stated that the information sought by him was not related to intelligence or security issues.
9. Respondent has acted in conformity with the RTI Act.
Decision
10. Order of FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Vijay K Sawhney v. M/o H.A. Intelligence Bureau in Decision No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002240/VS/07037