केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ माग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/INBRU/A/2023/118530 Shri K. M. Abdul Jabbar (Advocate) … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Intelligence Bureau Date of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date of Decision : 23.01.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 19.01.2023 PIO replied on : 31.01.2023 First Appeal filed on : 13.03.2023 First Appellate Order on : 03.04.2023 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.04.2023 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-

1. “Whether you have issued look out notice as per the request of Superintendent of Police, Chikmagalur District, Chikmagalur, Karnataka State against Rizwan Hussain S/o Mohammed K.

2. If you have issued look out notice, provide the copy of the same.”

The CPIO, Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi vide letter dated 31.01.2023 replied as under:-

“2. It is mentioned that sought information pertains to Intelligence Bureau (IB)/Bureau of Immigration (Bol). However, as per Chapter VI, Section 24 (1) and Second Schedule of the RTI Act 2005, IB/Bol is exempted from providing any information/details on the subject. Your IPO of Rs. 10/- is returned in original.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 03.04.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Bindu Sharma, CPIO and Mr. Pramod Kumar, J10-11-

participated in the hearing.

The Respondent stated that the by virtue of provision contained in Section- 24 read with Second Schedule of RTI Act-2005, the information sought for by the Appellant, cannot be provided since the Intelligence Bureau is an organization listed in Second Schedule of Right to Information Act 2005, except the one that relates to cases of corruption & human rights violation. They averred that the information sought by the Appellant does not fall under either of the two aforementioned categories.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant’s queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. Commission observes that the Intelligence Bureau is an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and, accordingly, under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the Intelligence Bureau is exempt from the rigours of the RTI Act. Commission notes that there is no material on record to show that there was any corruption or violation of human rights so as to bring the case of the Appellant within the ambit of the Proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.

Appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया

Chief Information Commissioner (मख्ु य सचू ना आयक्तु )

Authenticated true copy अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत ( )

S. K. Chitkara (एस के नचटकारा)

. .

Dy. Registrar (उप - पंजीयक)

011-26186535 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil