Information regarding Dependent Identity Card issued by Indian Army - Respondent: It is issued by the CO; Issued to avail travelling, medical facility as well as CSD canteen facility besides being proof of identity - CIC: No further action required
14 Feb, 2024Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2022 seeking the following information:
“Information in respect of Dependent Identity Cards issued by Indian Army (under authority - AO 74/75, 120/80, 32/84) to dependents of serving Commissioned Officers
Kindly provide all documents/information that discloses following procedural aspects involved in issuing of Dependent Identity Cards
1. Documents that detail the lowest rank of the officer competent/authorized to issue/sign such dependent cards (Issuing Authority) in case when such card is issued to dependents of serving Commissioned Officers.
2. Documents that detail the lowest rank of the officer competent/authorized to cross check/examine /verify/approve such dependent cards for final issue (Approving Authority) in case when such card is issued to dependents of serving Commissioned Officers. If the Issuing Authority and Approving Authority is one and the same Officer, please mention.
3. Documents that details which official seals are to be placed on such dependent cards including those of Issuing or Approving Authority for such dependent cards to be valid
4. Documents that detail presence of all essential entries to be made on such dependent cards for them to be valid and if any field of such cards can be left blank.
5. Documents wherein by any possibility it provides for an Officer of the rank of Captain to issue/sign and seal dependent cards for dependents of an officer of the rank of Lieutenant.”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2022 stating as under:
“A copy of AO 120/80, vide which the information pertaining to your query has been provided and is enclosed herewith.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2022.
The FAA vide its order dated 14.10.2022, upheld the decision of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through NIC
Respondent: Shri Tamojeet Bisewas, CPIO appeared in person.
The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and misleading.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided the information vide letters dated 11.08.2022 and the same was upheld by the FAA vide order dated 14.10.2022.They further submitted that information as held by them has been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the appellant sought information regarding Dependent Identity Card issued by Indian Army (under authority - AO 74/75, 120/80, 32/84) to dependents of serving Commissioned Officers and related issues. The respondent vide letter dated 1.08.2022 copy of AO 120/80, wherein information related to Dependent Identity Card has been given. The respondent during the hearing informed that Dependent Identity Card is issued by the CO and the same can be issued to avail travelling, medical facility as well as CSD canteen facility besides being a proof of identity. Moreover, the appellant failed to explain as to how the information provided by the respondent was incomplete and misleading.
The respondent further stated that information available to them has been provided to the appellant. It may not be out of place to mention that under the RTI Act, the CPIO/PIO are under obligation to provide the information which is held by them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has observed as under:
“35……… But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant……………”
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply has been by the respondent and further intervention is not required in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Abhishek Bhansali v. Addl. DG AE, G6, D1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, File No: CIC/ARMHQ/A/2022/657955; Date of Decision : 15-01-2024