Central Information Commission
Omprakash Kashiram vs Indian Air Force on 5 May, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/118398
In the matter of:
Omprakash Kashiram
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Directorate of Personal Services,
Air Head Quarters, Vayu Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110011
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/01/2019 CPIO replied on : 06/02/2019 First appeal filed on : 13/02/2019 First Appellate Authority order : NOT on record Second Appeal dated : 01 /04/2019 Date of Hearing : 04/05/2021 Date of Decision : 04/05/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: The Appellant in his second appeal has stated that he has opted not to attend the hearing.
Respondent: Wg Cdr S K Ojha, CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copies of the supply order for purchase of Rafale Aircraft from Dassault Company, France under the Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP).
2. Provide copies of the documents submitted by the Air Chief Marshal to the Controller of Defence Accounts for issue of funds for purchase of Rafale Aircrafts under DPP.1
3. Give the name of Air Chief Marshal, in office, during the time of purchase of Rafale Aircrafts.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information while claiming exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal memo had stated that he has opted not to attend the hearing and therefore his case may be considered on merits. In his second appeal memo, he had stated that he is not satisfied with the denial of the information by the CPIO.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his initial reply dated 06.02.2019 and the contents of his written submissions dated 07.04.2021.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records , it is noted that the CPIO had correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(a) & 8(1)d) of the RTI Act while stating that the information is related to the security of the country and it is also commercial in nature and no firm would like to provide such information to the public at large that includes the details of the supply orders, its magnitude, inspection notes etc and therefore, the information was also denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply so given. Hence, no information can be supplied to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) सरना सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू 2 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3