Central Information Commission
Subramanian Kalyani Asari vs Director General Of Civil Aviation on 7 September, 2021
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DGOCA/A/2019/119762
Shri Subramanian Kalyani Asari ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Director General of Civil Aviation ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Shivraj Singh - Dy. Director
Shri R K Senapati - Bureau of Civil Aviation
Security - Regional Director
Date of Hearing : 06.09.2021
Date of Decision : 07.09.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.09.2018
PIO replied on : 26.09.2018
First Appeal filed on : 09.11.2018
First Appellate Order on : 30.11.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 29.04.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.09.2018 seeking certified copy of security license issued by BCAS to BWFS, concessionaire agreement entered on 24.02.2016 with MIAL/GVK, eligibility criteria of Bird Worldwide Flight Services as ground handling security agency and other related information.
The PIO /DDG vide letter dated 26.09.2018 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO/Dy. Director, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Mumbai.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.11.2018. The FAA/Joint Director General vide order dated 30.11.2018 justified the transfer of the RTI application by the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 1 of 4Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO/Dy. DGCA vide letter dated 27.08.2021 reiterating the above facts and adding that the information sought by the Appellant do not fall within the jurisdiction of the DGCA.
The Respondent from Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) has also sent written submissions dated 03.09.2021, relevant extracts whereof are as under:
Page 2 of 4The Respondent-BCAS has also provided a point-wise detailed reply denying information to the Appellant as the information sought relates to a third party, disclosure whereof is of no public interest.
A copy of this point-wise reply and written submission dated 03.09.2021, has been sent to the Appellant.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through video conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties attended the hearing and reiterated their respective arguments, as noted above. During the course of hearing, it was noted by the Bench that similar queries regarding the same subject matter of concessionaire agreement between Mumbai International Airport Ltd. [MIAL] and Cambata Aviation and appointment of ground handling agency - M/s Bird Worldwide Flight Services RIT Ltd. had been heard by this Bench. It was found that Second Appeals No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/133021 and CIC/MOCAV/A/2019/121355 filed by the same Appellant stood adjudicated by this Bench vide order dated 10.02.2021. It had been noted in the said decision dated 10.02.2021, 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. While deciding the appeal no. CIC/MOCAV/A/2019/121355, the Commission had directed thus:
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 fairhearing to the Appellant.
The Respondent- Shri R K Senapati from the BCAS submitted that the Commission's order had been duly complied with and the FAA/BCAS - Shri Ankit Garg, IPS-Dy. Director General, BCAS had decided the matter with a reasoned speaking order dated 22.03.2021, copy whereof has been placed on record before the Commission. It is noted from the FAA's order that the hearing had been conducted over phone and Appellant was present during hearing.
Decision:
Considering the above facts and upon perusal of the BCAS/FAA's order dated 22.03.2021, the Commission notes that the issue at hand has been decided at length and requires no further intervention, under the RTI Act. The Appellant is advised to seek appropriate legal remedy before a forum which can redress his grievances, since no further information on this subject matter can be furnished under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4