Central Information Commission
Subramanian Kalyani Asari vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 10 February, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/133021
CIC/MOCAV/A/2019/121355
Shri Subramanian Kalyani Asari ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Airport Authority of India, Mumbai International
Airport Limited
Ministry of Civil Aviation
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2021
Date of Decision : 10.02.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
133021 23.10.2017 04.11.2017 02.12.2017 06.12.2017 24.05.2018
121355 16.08.2018 25.10.2018 08.01.2019 - 08.05.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/133021 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated23.10.2017 seeking information on following 10 points:-
1. Please provide certified copy of concession agreement dated 12.11.2010 between Mumbai International Airport Ltd and Cambata Aviation RT. Ltd. for ground handling operation at CSI Airport-Mumbai.
2. Please provide amended agreement copy dated 05.04.2011 between Mumbai International Airport Ltd and Cambata Aviation RT. Ltd. for ground handling operation at CSIA-Mumbai.
3. Has mail received and communication regarding termination of concession agreement from Cambata Aviation RT. Ltd. with mail. If yes, Page 1 of 6 please provide certified copy of the same. If no, is concession agreement still valid as on today.
4. Please provide certified copy of the security clearance letter issued by BCAS-Commissioner of Security (CA) in respect of bird worldwide flight service (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd for ground handling operation at CSI Airport, Mumbai.
5. Please provide certified copy of all open public tender document with regard to the appointment of M/s Bird Worldwide Flight Services(Mumbai) RIT. Ltd as a ground handling concession at CSI airport Mumbai.
Etc. The Mumbai International Airport Private Limited(MIAL) vide letter dated 04.11.2017 stated that MIAL is not a "Public Authority" under the provisions of the RTI Act and therefore, the RTI Act does not apply to MAIL.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the MIAL, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.12.2017. The Mumbai International Airport Private Limited (MIAL) vide letter dated 06.12.2017 replied as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.` Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 31.01.2021 wherein it was stated that he is an employee of Cambata Aviation Private Limited (CAPL) and his employment was governed by the concession agreement signed between CAPL and AAI. In 2006, four metro airports were leased by Government for 33 years and Mumbai International Airport Limited was incorporated for day to day operation of Mumbai Airport. Cambata Aviation Limited and Mumbai International Airport Limited (CAPL and MIAL) had signed a concession agreement for providing Manpower and Equipment to all the foreign airlines for Loading/ Unloading of cargo and passengers. A DMDA (Operation, Management and Development Agreement) was signed between AAI and MIAL and Page 2 of 6 a lease agreement was signed. He referred to Section 12 of the AAI Act and stated that the same delineates the function of AAI. Section 12 (A) (I) introduced by Act 43 of2003 begins with a non obstante clause and empowers the AAI in the public interest or in the interest of the better management of Airports to carry out some of its function under section 12. As per the lease agreement dated 26.04.2006 between AAI and MIAL, the lease cannot be made without the previous approval of the central government and that all clauses as per lease agreement fulfils the provision of Section 2 (h) (d) (i) hence MIAL is a public authority. He alleged that the matter is ignored by the AAI and Central Government and as custodian, AAI has failed to enforce all agreements entered with MIAL.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the information sought was incorrectly denied by the Respondent since according to him Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) is a Public Authority which falls within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, the Commission concurs with the response of the CPIO/ FAA as the issue whether MIAL is a public authority or not has been settled by a division bench of the Commission in CIC/MA/C/2008/000195 decided on 18.05.2020 in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 17.05.2019 wherein while setting aside the earlier order of the Commission, a direction was given to the Commission to decide afresh on the issue if MIAL is a public authority, or not. The bench of the Commission vide its detailed order dated 18.05.2020 concluded as under:
"6.2 Now a specific direction has been given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the Commission to consider afresh and decide whether MIAL is a 'public authority'. In pursuance of the directions we have reconsidered the issue and heard both parties. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records feels that MIAL is not a 'public authority 'under S. 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. We are also of the view that it may be open to the complainant to seek information through public authority for MIAL i.e. AAI or Ministry of Civil Aviation as the case may be. That being so, the complaint of the complainant is unfounded and the same is rejected......."
Thus, in view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Page 3 of 6(2) CIC/MOCAV/A/2019/121355 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2018 seeking information on following 04 points:-
1. Please provide certified copy of the order signed by Shri K.N. Shrivastava
- Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, GoI- as per order No. AV.29011/01/2009-as-(vol-II) issued against - appeal under rule 4 of the aircraft (security) rule, 2011 and order no. CAS-7(23) 2007-Div-I (Cambata Court Case) dated 03.08.2012 passed by BCAS.
2. Please provide certified copies of all the correspondence /communication
- done with Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd-CSI Airport - Mumbai regarding issuance of security clearance licence of ground handling and further revewal of same licence as on today.
3. Please provide certified copy of security clearance licence issued to Bird Worldwide Flight Services (Mumbai) RIT. Ltd. at CST Airport Mumbai on 21.06.2016.
4. Has your Ministry received any communication / intimation regarding surrender of security clearance licence from Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
Mumbai-Delhi -CNE Pune -Ahmedabad. If yes, please provide certified copy.
The CPIO/Under Secretary to the Government of India vide letter dated 25.10.2018 furnished the information as under:-
1. Disclosure of the information /details sought for by you qualify for exemption under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. 3. & 4 - As section under the charge of the undersigned do not process matter relating to grant of security clearance to agencies such as Ground Handling Service Provider. Hence, the information sought is not available with this section.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the MIAL, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Respondent (M/o Civil Aviation) vide letter dated 21.01.2021 wherein it was stated that the Appellant had filed an appeal to Shri Maheshwar Dayal as FAA and not to Smt Garima Singh, Director and FAA which implied that the Appellant had only appealed for point no 2 to 4 for which the CPIO/ FAA, BCAS is the Respondent and the appeal did not pertain to the M/o Civil Aviation. Accordingly, the notice of hearing was forwarded by the Respondent to BCAS.Page 4 of 6
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that neither was the information provided by the CPIO nor was his First Appeal filed with the FAA, BCAS decided, till date. Explaining the background of the matter, the Appellant stated that the issues raised in the RTI application pertained to the larger public interest as he alongwith 2100 (approx.) other employees of Cambata Aviation Private Limited (CAPL) were unlawfully removed from their service without payment of their dues including statutory dues by their employer after a new ground handling agency was appointed by AAI/ MIAL in place of CAPL. Thus, disclosure of information would allow them to contest the matter before an appropriate judicial forum.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Brajesh Srivastava, Under Secretary, M/o Civil Aviation, Capt Ashutosh Vashist, Assistant Director, BCAS, M/o Civil Aviation and Shri Pramod Kumar Tiwari, Consultant (Legal), BCAS, M/o Civil Aviation. Shri Srivastava referred to their written submission mentioned above and stated that only point no 1 pertained to them for which an appropriate response was provided to the Appellant. The remaining points (2 to 4) were transferred to BCAS. Thereafter, the Appellant filed the First Appeal before Shri Maheshwar Dayal, Dy Director General, BCAS and not before them. Hence, there existed no further role of theirs in the instant matter. Shri Vashisht stated that reply to the RTI application was provided to the Appellant on 04.12.2018 denying information u/s 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the first appeal was not received by them. Explaining the reasons for denial of information, Shri Vashisht stated that BCAS did not issue any security clearance license earlier and only background check of companies and its directors was conducted. Explaining that since it was a confidential exercise conducted for security clearance, the Respondent stated that the then CPIO found it prudent not to disclose the same to the Appellant. The Respondent further stated that similar matters were heard and adjudicated earlier by the Commission in CIC/BOCAS/A/2018/133837/SD decided on 18.09.2019 and CIC/BOCAS/A/2018/101538/SD decided on
26.06.2019.
Decision:
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observes that the reply provided by the CPIO did not contain any detailed reasons/ explanations for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (d) and (j). The reasons provided by the Respondent during the hearing that the records sought contained secret and confidential information regarding security clearance was not pleaded in the CPIO reply. Besides the first appeal filed by the Appellant remains unaddressed, till date. Therefore, taking into consideration the above observation, the Commission remands the matter to the FAA, BCAS, M/o Civil Aviation to decide the first appeal and pass a speaking order after granting a fair hearing to the Appellant. The above mentioned direction should be complied with by 15.03.2021 under intimation to the Commission. Capt Ashutosh Vashist, Page 5 of 6 Assistant Director, BCAS is directed to serve a copy of the aforementioned direction to the concerned FAA in order to ensure timely compliance of the abovementioned direction.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off with the aforementioned direction.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 of 6