Central Information Commission
Sarang Vaman Yadwadkar vs Airports Authority Of India on 22 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा /Second Appeal No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2025/113340
Sarang Vaman Yadwadkar ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Airports Authority of India
Pune, Mumbai ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 17/04/2026
Date of Decision : 17/04/2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on 20/12/2024
CPIO replied on 16/01/2025
First appeal filed on 17/01/2025
FAA's order dated Not on Record
Second Appeal dated 15/04/2025
Information sought:
The appellant has filed RTI application dated 20/12/2024 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me a copy/copies of agreements if executed between Airport Authority of India (or" any such organisation) and the Aero mall/Owners of Aero mall/Ola/Uber etc. with respect to the operation/pickup by the cab services at Pune Airport."Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2025/113340 Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant on 16/01/2025 stated as:
"Information cannot be provided under Rule 8(1) d of the RTI Act, 2005 due to commercial secrets. (information including commercial confidence, trade secrets intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.)..."
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority order is not on record.
4. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 15/04/2025.
Written Submission of the Respondent dated 10/04/2026 is taken on record Written Submission of the Appellant is taken on record
5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present on VC Respondent: Prashant Patil DGM (Commercial) (Authorized Representative) participated in the hearing on VC The Appellant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the information sought is in public interest. By denying it under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, AAI has admitted possession of the documents. As per DoPT OM dated 07.11.2019, all information related to Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects, including agreements and related documents, must be disclosed suo motu in the public domain. The same principle applies to the Aeromall PPP.
The reply "Not applicable" on the air pollution study is incorrect. It is the duty of AAI to monitor air quality in the confined indoor cab pick-up area.
The Respondent submits that AAI does not maintain any direct agreement with Uber or Ola regarding cab pick-up operations at Pune Airport. AAI has entered into an agreement only with the Aeromall Operator (MLCP) for development, operation and maintenance of the Multi-Level Car Parking with Integrated Commercial on DBOM basis. The Aeromall Operator provides facilities for cab pick-up under this agreement. However, the copy of the agreement cannot be shared as the Operator has not given consent. The agreement contains commercial confidence, trade secrets and information whose disclosure would harm the Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2025/113340 Page 2 of 4 competitive position of the third party. Hence, it is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.He further apprises the bench that the Agreements between Aeromall Operator and Uber/Ola are maintained by the Operator themselves and were not provided to AAI. These are also exempt under Section 8(1)(d) for the same reasons.
DECISION In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission observes that that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is further directed to the Respondent to send the copy of the written submission dated 10.04.2026 to the Appellant free of cost via email and speed post within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and accordingly send the copy of the compliance report to the commission within 7 days thereafter.
No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The Appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशु तोष चतु वदी) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) िदनां क/ Date: 17.04.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2025/113340 Page 3 of 4 Address of the Parties:
1. CPIΟ Airports Authority of India, Western Region Head Office, Integrated Operational Offices Building, Sahar Rd, New Airport Colony, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra 400099
2. CPIO Airports Authority of India, Pune Airport, New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411032
3. Sarang Vaman Yadwadkar Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2025/113340 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)