Mr. Rajesh Bindal J.: - Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 30.7.2012, passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana (for short, ‘the Commission’), whereby it has directed the petitioner to supply certain information to respondent No. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two-fold submissions, namely, that in view of the notification issued by the State of Haryana on 29.12.2005, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), State Criminal Investigation Department including the Crime Branch was exempted from the application of the Act. Further, reliance was sought to be placed upon Section 8(1)(g) of the Act, whereby exemption has been granted from disclosure of information in cases where disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Learned counsel further submitted that though in the penultimate paragraph the Commission has directed for providing of information under clauses (a), (b) and (d), whereas in final paragraph, the clauses have been mentioned as (a),(b) and (c). He submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to move application before the Commission for correction of the error, if any.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Respondent No. 2 in the present case filed application seeking following information:

“a) Provide details of total expenditure involved in the security of each MP and MLA of the Haryana State and information must contain specify expenditure involved per member.

b) Provide information as to how many security vehicles are involved as Pilot Vehicle and Security Vehicles for the security of each MP and MLA of Haryana State.

c) Provide information as to according to the policy/norms how many security personnel’s can be provided to each MLA and MP and their family members.

d) Details of total expenditure took place in the year 2008- 2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 as diesel and petrol expenses.

e) Details of the wear and tear cost of the security vehicles.

f) Information is required in form of details of the account concerning individual MP and MLA.”

4. The prayer was not accepted by the Public Information Officer. Appeal was filed. The same was also rejected by the appellate authority. The matter was taken to the Commission, whereby the Commission directed that the information, as sought under clauses (a), (b) and (d) be provided to the applicant (respondent No. 2).

5. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the petitioner being exempted in terms of the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act is concerned, in my opinion, the same does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as the answer thereto is available in the proviso thereto, which was considered by a Division Bench of this court in First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Director General of Police and another v. Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana and another, [2011(4) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 3789] : AIR 2011 P&H 168. Section 24(4) of the Act and the relevant paragraph of the judgment are extracted below:

“Section 24(4) of the Act

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organizations, being organizations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State 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.”

Paragraph 14 of the judgmen