TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act. That being the position, the provisions with regard to penalty under Section 20 of the said Act would also not apply. Appellant/petitioner had candidly submitted that he had not prayed for imposition of penalty but for compensation, which, admittedly, is not provided for under the said Act. In any event, even if we construe the prayer for compensation as a prayer for imposing penalty under Section 20 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the appellant. 5. As to the question of award of compensation to the appellant for supply of inaccurate and incorrect information, it has to be kept in mind that DRDO is an exempted organization under section 24 of the RTI Act. This exemption is unequivocal and binding. DRDO does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act. Even so, by custom, this Commission had carved out a small jurisdiction for supply of establishment related information to the information seekers, to the total exclusion of tactical and strategic information. Even, if the appellant s contention that detriment has been caused to her due to supply of inaccurate and incorrect information is accepted, in my opinion, it would not be legally sound either to punish Shri B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request. 3. On a plain reading of the above provisions, it is evident that the Act does not apply to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or to any information furnished by such organizations to that Government. It is an admitted position that DRDO is a Central Government organization and is specified in the Second Schedule. Therefore, in the first instance, DRDO is an exempted organization and the said Act does not apply to it. However, the first proviso to Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he had not prayed for imposition of penalty but for compensation, which, admittedly, is not provided for under the said Act. In any event, even if we construe the prayer for compensation as a prayer for imposing penalty under Section 20 of the said Act, the same cannot be granted in view of the fact that the information sought by the appellant/petitioner did not pertain to allegations of corruption or of human rights violations. That being the case, the Act itself does not apply to the DRDO, particularly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Insofar as vindication of the stand of the appellant/petitioner is concerned, that aspect of the matter has already been recognized by the order, dated 22-8-2013 passed by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
