2015 (2) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of the order, dated 22-8-2013 passed by the CIC which is to the following effect : - "4.     It is a matter of fact that Shri Bundela had provided inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant but Shri Bundela's contention that he had transmitted information as received by him from CPIO of RAC cannot be disregarded. It is important to bear in mind that Shri Bundela was not the holder of information. The holder of information was CPIO, RAC. Whatever information was forwarded to Shri Bundela by CPIO, RAC, he transmitted the same to 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct reads as under : - "1. Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government : 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 Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought 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. 6. Moreover, the learned counsel for the 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 s....