Central Information Commission
Mr.Shri Stya Parkash Rathi vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 27 April, 2011
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Kama Place
New Delhi
Case No. CIC/OP/A/2009/000129
Name of Appellant : Sh. Stya Parkash Rathi
(The Appellant was not present)
Name of Respondent : Delhi International Airport, Ltd. IGI Airport
(Represented by Sh. Ashwini Matx, Sr.
Advocate, Sh. Milanka Chaudhory,
Advocate, Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate,
Sh. Manmeet Sethi, Adovate and Sh. Alok
Kumar, Manager Legal)
The matter was heard on : 29.04.2010
ORDER
Sh. Stya Parkash Rathi, the Appellant, vide his RTI application dated 8.12.2008 sought certain information from the Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL). Not getting any response from DIAL, Sh. Stya Parkash Rathi filed appeal before the Commission.
During the hearing on 4.02.2010, Sh. Milanka Chaudhury, Advocate, Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, Sh. Govind Vijay, Associate ManagerLegal and Sh. Sumant Yadav, AVPDIAL on behalf of DIAL submitted that Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL) was not a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 and was not liable to provide any information to any information seeker under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and in this regard the representative of DIAL, put on record the statement of authorized signatory DIAL, dated 4.02.2010, wherein it was stated that the DIAL was not a Public Authority, under the RTI Act, 2005.
However, the Commission found that in decision No. CIC/OK/C/2006/00125 dated 17.01.2007, Delhi International Airport Private Ltd. had been declared a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission took serious note of the misrepresentation of the Respondents on the behalf of DIAL and issued a Show Cause Notice to the Respondents, vide its order dated 5.03.2010.
In response to the Show Cause Notice of the Commission the Respondents plead as follows: "3. That the decision in the matter of Sh. Anil Heble is not final and continues to be under consideration. In the said matter, the Commission had passed an order without giving a hearing to DIAL. When this fact was brought to the attention of the Commission, the Commission issued notice to DIAL. Subsequently, the Commission not only heard the arguments of DIAL but also allowed it to file written submission (a copy of which has been filed alongwtih the Review Petition). The Commission then reserved orders and no subsequent orders have been passed by the Commission till date.
(ii) That the Order dated March 5, 2010 proceeds on the basis that the officers of DIAL concealed the fact that DIAL has already been declared a public authority under the purview of the RTI Act whereas fact relating to the reconsideration of the Anil Heble appeal was specifically pleaded before the Commission.
(iii) That the Commission has not gone into the maintainability of the Appeal preferred by Sh. S. P. Rathi on various grounds raised by DIAL and has decided the issue only on the basis of the previous order of the Commission, which in my submission is under consideration and has not attained finality.
(iv) That under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission can impose a penalty on the CPIO or an SPIO and not on any other officer. The officers of DIAL against whom the Show Cause notices have directed to be issued are neither the CPIO nor the SPIO nor have they been designated as such by DIAL or by the Commission for the reason that DIAL is not a "Public Authority".
(v) That the Commission in its order dated March 5, 2010, has described Sh. Dharmendra Yadav (AGMSecurityDial) as the CPIO which is factually incorrect as the said officer has not been designated as CPIO by DIAL for the reason that DIAL is not "Public Authority".
4. Without prejudice to the above, the notice under reply is misplace and is liable to be withdrawn on the following grounds:
i) That the Notices is not liable to a penalty under the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act as the provisions of the said section are applicable only to CPIO or an SPIO appointed under Section 5 of the RTI Act. The Notices has never been appointed as a CPIO or an SPIO of DIAL for the reason that DIAL is not a "Public Authority" and is therefore not liable to be proceeded against of penalized under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
(ii) That the notice under reply has also been issued under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act which requires the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. The Appellant/Complainant has not shown what loss or detriment, if any, has been suffered by it by the alleged refusal to supply information by DIAL. Moreover, no pleading or claim to this effect have been made by the Appellant before the Commission in his Appeal, making out a ground for loss or detriment suffered."
The Commission tried to locate the file and deal with the alleged review petition in the case referred to by the Respondent. However, this bench has been informed by Sh. Akash Deep Chakroverti (J.S. Law) that no review petition, is pending before the Commission as alleged by the Respondent. It has been further clarified by J.S. (Law) that an application was filed by Sh. Anil Heble, the Appellant in the case, which became the trigger point for issuance of notice to DIAL only as third party. However, complete compliance of the order of the Commission was reported by the Airport Authority of India on 8.03.2007 and therefore, on 12.03.2007, no lis was pending between parties to the case needing adjudication by the Commission. This position has also been clarified by Joint Secretary (Law), vide letter dated 18.04.2011 to DIAL. Therefore, as per the earlier decision of the Commission in decision No. CIC/OK/C/2006/00129 dated 17.01.2007, DIAL is a Public Authority under the RTI Act and the Commission's order is final. There is no provision for review of orders passed by the Commission. Moreover, in their own submissions, the Respondents plead : "DIAL has been granted exclusive right and authority for performing the functions of operation, maintenance, development, designing, construction, up gradation, modernization, financing and management of the IGI Airport and to perform services and activities constituting Aeronautical Services, the NonAeronautical Services (excluding Reserved Activities) at the IGI Airport pursuant to the Operation, Management and Development Agreement dated April 04, 2006 ("OMDA") signed between DIAL and AAI."
Therefore, as per the Respondents own submission, it is very clear that DIAL is performing quasigovernmental functions and the activities of DIAL impact the citizens' daily lives.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION Vs VEERESH MALIK & ORS. observed as follows:-
"The Act marks a legislative milestone, in the post independence era, to further democracy. It empowers citizens and information applicants, to demand and be supplied with information about public records; parliamentary endeavor is to extend it also to public authorities which impact citizens daily lives."
In view of the above Sh. I. P. Rao, Chief Executive Officer, DIAL, the President, Vice President and other concerned officers of the DIAL are hereby directed to implement the provisions of the RTI Act, by designating the CPIO and FAA and by implementing Section 4 of the RTI Act. The CPIO is further directed to provide complete requisite information to the Appellant as per record.
As far as penalty proceedings against the officers of DIAL is concerned, the Commission, on careful perusal of the relevant documents and replies of the officers, and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the considered opinion that for the purposes of imposing penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act a person has to be identified as a CPIO under the RTI Act, which in this case cannot be done since the CPIO has not been officially designated by the Public Authority. Therefore, penalty proceedings against the Respondent are hereby dropped. However, the commission is of the view that the information seeker has suffered harassment and detriments due to nonfurnishing of the information. Therefore, the Commission deems it fit to award the compensation of Rs. 2,000/ to Sh. Stya Parkash Rathi, which shall be paid by the Public Authority. The Chief Executive Officer of the DIAL is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2000/ to Sh. Stya Parkash Rathi within 2 weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
However, the Commission takes a serious view of the misleading statement made on the part of the Respondent that they are not a Public Authority under the RTI Act. Sh. Dharmender Yadav, Associate General Manager (Security), Sh. Sumant Nayak, Asst. Vice President, Sh. Govind Vijay, Associate Manager (Legal), Sh. Pardeep Paniker, Vice President are warned to be careful in future while dealing with RTI matters.
sd (Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 27.04.2011 Authenticated true copy (S. Padmanabha) Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar Case No. CIC/OP/A/2009/000129 Copy to:
1. Sh. Stya Parkash Rathi Chairman State of Delhi Peoples All India anti Corruption & Crime Prevention Society State OfficeRZ72, Laxmi Park Gopal Nagar Najaf Garah New Delhi
2. Sh. Govind Vijay, Associate ManagerLegal, Delhi International Air Port Ltd.
Kargo Terminal, I.G.I Air Port, New Delhi110037
3. The First Appellate Authority Managing Director, Delhi International Air Port Ltd.
I.G.I. Air Port, New Delhi110037
4. Sh. Sandeep Parkash Director, Room No. 58, 'B' Blaock, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi110003.
5. Sh. Dharmedera Yadav CPIO, Associate Gen. Manager (Security) Delhi International Air Port Ltd.
I.G.I. Air Port, New Delhi110037
6. Sh. Pardeep Paniker Vice President Delhi International Air Port Ltd.
I.G.I. Air Port, New Delhi110037
7. Sh. Sumant Nayak Asstt. Vice President Delhi International Air Port Ltd.
I.G.I. Air Port, New Delhi110037