Central Information Commission
Mrsubhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Defence on 24 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus,New Delhi110067
Tel: +911126106140/26179548
Interim order
File No.
CIC/RM/A/2014/002052/SD
Date of hearing: 23/05/2016
Date of interim order: 24/05/2016
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Subhash Chandra Agrawal
1775 Kucha Lattushah
Dariba, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi110006
Respondent : 1)Deputy Secretary (Air - II) CPIO
M/o Defence
Room No - 373, Vayu Bhavan
New Delhi
2)Dy. Director & CPIO
Dte of PS
Air HQ , New Delhi 110106
RTI application : 06/01/2014
filed on
PIO replied on : 14/02/2014
First appeal filed : 06/02/2014
on
First Appellate : 14/02/2014
Authority order
Second Appeal dated : 27/04/2014
Information Commissioner : Shri Divya Prakash
Sinha
Information sought:
Appellant sought the following information together with related filenotings/ correspondence/documents etc on under mentioned aspects also relating to newsitem 'India scraps rupees 3700crore VVIP helicopter contract' and 'Govtred flags CBI move to quiz guvs' (HT 02.01.2014) 1 Complete Information together with related file notings and documents/correspondence/agreement etc on (a) signing and (b) terminating Agusta Westland deal for supply of 12 VVIP helicopters to India.1
2 No. of helicopters already supplied to India mentioning also respective dates of supplies mentioning also deliveryschedule for rest of the contracted helicopters 3 Total cost of helicopters and terms of payment mentioning also payment already made with dates of respective payments.
4 Amount of bankguarantee and name (and branch) of the bank providing the said bankguarantee. 5 Has amount held in bankguarantee been received by India? 6 If yes, provide details.
7 Will the already procured helicopters be sent back to the company having delivered the same to India? 8 Complete information together with related filenotings and correspondence/documents etc on sending back already procured helicopters.
9 Complete information together with related file notings/correspondence etc on action taken to recover payment already made by India towards the said helicopters as in queries above.
10 Names of Indians and foreigners (with their earlier and present postings) under scanner for receiving kickbacks in the deal in the Italian Court revealing full forms of suspected ones like "POL", "AP", "FAM" etc mentioning also amount of kickbacks reported in Italian Court.
11 Is India also a party to the courtmatter in Italian Court?
12 If yes, names of advocates hired mentioning their respective fees to represent India in Italian courts. 13 Names of Indian and foreigners (with their earlier and present postings) under scanner for receiving kickbacks in the deal in the Italian court revealing full forms of suspected ones like ''POL'', ''AP'',''FAM'' etc. 14 Names of persons (with their earlier and present postings) for which CBI has sought permission for interrogation/prosecution etc. 15 Names of persons (with their earlier and present postings) for which interrogation have already been imitated in India.
16 Complete information together with related file notings and correspondence/documents etc on Union government not allowing interrogation etc by CBI for alleged kickbacks in the said helicopter deal as referred in queries above mentioning also if MK Narayan and BV Wanchoo are amongst such persons against whom CBI has sought permission for interrogation etc. 17 Any other related information 18 Filenotings on movement of this RTI petition.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:2
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Wing Commander D Anil Kumar, CPIO and Wing Commander M Paranjpe JAG, Air HQ. S.K. Sharma, CPIO and Sushil Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence present in person.
Appellant submitted that if details sought in information can be accessed through foreign sources, there is no reason that the same should not be disclosed under RTI Act. He mentioned that the information has to be made public in public interest.
CPIO stated that the CBI investigation in connection with the alleged scam relating to VVIP/VIP Helicopter deal is still continuing. CBI has time and again advised MoD that disclosure of any information related to this case will impede the process of investigation and disclosure of the same is exempt under section 8(1)(h). He further said the exemption under section 8(1)(h) of RTI is also applicable to the case because Arbitration Proceedings are on to recover the already paid amount to the supplier. Keeping in view the nature of the case and stakes involved, disclosure of information related to the case could impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offenders as well as Arbitration Proceeding.
Decision Commission has heard in detail both Appellant and CPIO. It has also taken note of the submission of CPIOs. Direction of the Commission against each point of the RTI Application is following:
1. Commission observed that all documents related to file notings/documents/correspondence/agreement on signing of Agusta Westland deal is in custody of CBI, the same cannot be disclosed.
Files and documents relating to termination of Agusta Westland deal be shown to the Commission in camera before 15/06/2016. Commission will examine application of Section 8(1)(a) and (h) in claiming exemption from disclosure of files and documents by the CPIO. It will also take a decision, if required 3 on applying severability clause under Section 10 of RTI Act in respect of any portion of the document/files.
2. Information has already been provided and there is no change in that.(point nos 2, 3 and 4)
3. Commission directs the MoD to provide details of Bank Guarantee amount received back by India. (point nos. 5and
6).
4. MoD is directed to provide required information on point no.7.
5. MoD is directed to provide copy of Attorney General's opinion on sending back already procured helicopters. (point no.8)
6. Any disclosure of information sought at point no.9 will affect arbitration proceeding in progress to recover payments already made by India. Commission orders no disclosure in this regard.
7. Commission accepts the submission of MoD that it cannot provide information on point no.10 as it is exempted under section 8(1)(h).
8. Commission directs the MoD to provide details of court cases in Italian Courts in which India is a party.(point no. 11)
9. MoD is directed to provide names of Italian Advocates/Italian law Firms hired to represent India in Italian Courts. (point no.12)
10. Commission accepts the submission of MoD that it cannot provide information on point no.13 as it is exempted under section 8(1)(h).
11. MoD submitted that it does not have any information relating to point nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17. Commission accepts the submission of the CPIO.
Commission directs the CPIO to provide information as directed above within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Raghubir Singh) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 4 5