Divya Prakash Sinha DECISION
Divya Prakash Sinha, Information Commissioner
Information sought:
1. The Complainant sought information regarding under construction officer's mess, accommodation in Coastal Regulatory Zone in terms of copy of the NOC obtained from KCZMA, copy of Form-I of Annexure IV (CRZ) filled by LMA and submitted to KCZMA and site plan submitted to KCZMA.
Grounds for the Complaint:
2. The CPIO caused him harassment upon filing the RTI Application under reference and that no information has been received by him till date.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 27.06.2017:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Lt. Col. T. Srinivasrulu, Company Commander & CPIO, Station Headquarter, Kannur present through VC.
3. Complainant stated that he has not received the information till date and reiterated the grounds of his Complaint, wherein he has stated that Col. Purushothaman of the Respondent office harassed him and his family, by sending a police complaint against him on the grounds of suspecting him as a spy. He also enclosed a copy of this Police Complaint along with his Complaint. The Police Complaint is dated 27.06.2016, lodged at City Police Station, Kannur, signed in the name of SSO, Station Cell, C/o DSC Centre, Pin- 901277, C/o 56 APO.
4. The crux of the police complaint is that, Complainant has been seeking various information related to 'infrastructure development, employment of personnel, name and appointment of Commanders, location of various establishments in Kannur Cantonment through RTI and other sources'. It was also recommended that activities of the Complainant be suspected, his movements be tracked and action be initiated against him by registering a FIR and asked to employ various state agencies for this purpose.
5. During the hearing, CPIO present i.e., Lt. Col. T. Srinivasrulu was asked to explain as to why no information has been provided on the RTI Application and his comments on the allegations of the Complainant.
6. CPIO submitted that no reply could be provided as the case took a 'different turn', when it came to their notice that the Complainant on 02.06.2016 filed a RTI Application with the District Collector, wherein he enclosed an annotated Google map of the Cantonment Area, which is seen as a threat to national security as the same may fall into the hands of anti-national elements.
7. It is pertinent to note that this particular issue finds mention in the above referred police complaint also.
8. At this stage, Commission inquired as to who was the then CPIO, i.e at the time of filing of the RTI Application, to which, Lt. Col. T. Srinivasrulu stated that he himself was the CPIO. At this instance, question arose as to who filed the Police Complaint, and it was brought on record that Col. Purushotaman filed the same in the capacity of being the Station Staff Officer. Commission further inquired as to what was the interest of Col. Purushotaman in the matter since he was not even the CPIO, to this, Lt. Col. T. Srinivasrulu informed that Col. Purushotaman is the custodian of information of Station HQ.
OBSERVATIONS:
9. In the facts of the case, Commission deems it appropriate to direct an inquiry into the matter in as much as, filing a police complaint primarily citing suspicion upon accessing information under RTI Act appears far too stretched. In this particular case, the police complaint has been clearly filed subsequent to the filing of the RTI Application under reference. Even if the police complaint was filed following any stipulated protocol, the CPIO or the custodian of information had no right to deny the information to the Complainant unless they could exempt the same under any of the provi........