Omprakash Kashiram vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. on 5 May, 2021

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Omprakash Kashiram vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. on 5 May, 2021

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/HALTD/A/2019/114301
In the matter of:
Omprakash Kashiram
                                                          ... Appellant
                                      VS
Central Public Information Officer
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd,
Corporate Office
15/1, Cubbon Road Bengaluru -560001
                                                          ...Respondent

RTI application filed on : 24/12/2018 CPIO replied on : 28/01/2019 First appeal filed on : 02/02/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 25/02/2019 Second Appeal dated : 27/03/2019 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: Maj Srihari, CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information regarding purchase of fighter aircrafts by Indian Air Force from various companies of India and outside India under the Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP).

l. Provide the copies of bid documents, submitted for supply of fighter aircrafts to Air Chief Marshal, New Delhi under DPP in competition of Rafale Company/ Dassault Company.

2. Provide the documents giving the reasons for non submission of bid to Air Chief Marshal for supply of Fighter Aircrafts.

3. Provide the documents giving reasons for rejection of HAL bid for supply of fighter aircrafts by Air Chief Marshal.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant in his second appeal memo had stated that he has not opted 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 information provided to him by the CPIO.

The CPIO reiterated the contents of his initial reply dated 28.01.2019 and his written submissions dated 24.04.2021.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of the CPIO, it is noted that a suitable reply was given to the appellant on 28.01.2019. The CPIO has rightly stated that the queries were not specific, however, based on the limited information provided by the appellant in his RTI application, it was deduced that he was seeking information about Rafale Aircraft and the available information regarding that was supplied to the appellant. The Commission finds the submissions to be detailed and explanatory, hence no further relief can be given.

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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission