PIO could not explain denial u/s 8(1)(g) - CIC: Take assistance from the custodian u/s 5(4) and send a suitable reply providing information as much as feasible after applying the provisions of Sec 10 or amplify the applicability of Sec 8(1)(g) of RTI Act
4 Oct, 2022Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information regarding Charge Memorandum No. 13024/16/Vig.I/OFB/2018 dated 30/04/2019 issued to the appellant pertaining to the alleged irregularities in procurement of 04 Sintering Furnaces at HAPP from M/s Fluidtherm Technology (P) Ltd (FTPL), Chennai vide SO No. HAPP/NC/CAP/SO/MP 2614000 /EO/2014-15 dated 24.02.2015:
- Provide copies of the Version Call Letters dated 15.12 .2014 issued to Secretary, other Members and Chairman, FTPL and copies of the replies received against the said Version Call Letters.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant challenged the applicability of Sec 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act. The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given after taking assistance from Director (Vigilance). The appellant contended that the information sought is directly related to them and hence, should be given.
Observations:
The CPIO explained the delay and stated that due to COVID the reply could not be sent on time.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 23.08.2022 submitted that he had taken assistance from Director/Vigilance (HQ-I) (concerned Section) of OFB to provide the information. On receipt of information from the Deemed PIO a reply vide no. 20210285/PIO-Per/RTI dated 29.06.2020 was issued to the applicant. In this regard an interim reply dated 12.06.2020 was also emailed to the applicant providing the reasons for delay in providing the information. He also submitted that the appellant was intimated that due to corona pandemic, Central Govt offices were running with skeletal strength of Essential Emergency services. It was informed that due to lockdown processing of the RTI requests were being delayed.
He further submitted that the appellant’s plea that Sec 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; is applicable to the rejection of information provided to law enforcing and security agencies is not in order since Sec 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; clearly states that exemption from disclosure of information is for law enforcement and security purposes. He alleged that it appears that the appellant has intentionally replaced the word purposes by agencies in order to construct a fallacious logic.
The appellant was therefore asked to explain to which he reiterated that the matter is related to them and Sec 8(1) (g) is not applicable. Moreover, the CPIO could not explain whether any investigation is pending or is there any danger to the life or physical safety of any person or it would identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO shall take assistance from the custodian u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act and send a suitable reply providing information as much as feasible after applying the provisions of Sec 10 of the RTI Act or amplify the applicability of Sec 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: R Anguvel v. Ministry of Defence in File no.: - CIC/OFBKO/A/2021/119994, Date of Decision: 01/09/2022