Central Information Commission
Tilottama Lahiri vs Airports Authority Of India on 31 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2024/123009
Ms. Tilottama Lahiri ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Airports Authority of India ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2025
Date of Decision : 29.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.02.2024
PIO replied on : 06.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 12.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 10.04.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 18.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.02.2024 seeking information on the following points regarding email dated 21.12.2023 sent by him to the CVO, AAI:-
1. A copy of the Report submitted by the Officer who has investigated my complaint as contained in my letter dated 22.03.2023 as referred to above.
2. A copy of the decision as recorded on file by the Competent Authority of AAI based on the Report of the Investigating Officer.
3. A copy of the communication sent to me (by letter or email) by the Vigilance Department of AAI based on the outcome of investigations into the complaint as raised in my letter dated 22.03.2023, as referred to above.
4. A copy of the letter (or email) received by the CVO, AAI (or by any other office in AAI CHQ) from BSES Rajdhani Power Limited based on letters sent by me to the CEO of this Authority raising a complaint regarding theft of power at the AAI Transit Guest House, Rangpuri, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi for the function held there on 28.02.2022 (as mentioned in my letter dated 22.03.2022 to the CVO, AAI).
5. A copy of the letter (or email) received by the R.E.D., AAI, Northern Region from BSES Rajdhani Power Limited based on letters sent by me to the CEO of this Authority raising a complaint regarding theft of power at the AAI Transit Guest House, Rangpuri, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi for the function held there on 28.02.2022 (as mentioned in my letter dated 22.03.2022 to the CVO, AAI).Page 1 of 4
6. A copy of the reply sent by the CVO, AAI (or by any other official of AAI CHQ) to the letter/email received from BSES Rajdhani Power Limited as mentioned at Sl. No. 4 above.
7. A copy of the reply sent by the R.E.D., AAI, Northern Region (or by any other official of AAI, Northern Region) to the letter/email received from BSES Rajdhani Power Limited as mentioned at Sl. No. 5 above.
The CPIO, Airports Authority of India vide letter dated 06.03.2024 replied as under:-
Point No. 1 & 2:-The complaint was logically concluded as per approval of the Competent Authority.
In accordance with CIC decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated
08.02.2017, CIC/AAOIN/A/2021/621212 dated 03.06.2022 and as per the provisions under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005, the copy of file notings etc. on the subject are denied.
Point No. 3 to 7:-No such recorded information is available in the relevant file of vigilance department of AAI."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 10.04.2024 held as under:-
3.1 "For part of the appeal at S.no. 2.4 & 2.5, it is informed that Vigilance Department of AAI had received complaint dated 23.03.2023 from Ms. Tilottama Lahiri regarding "suspected case of power theft at AAI transit guest house Rangpuri, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on 28.02.2022". Based on the updated CVC manual 2021, necessary action was taken on the said complaint. Since no vigilance angle was found in the complaint, the complaint was logically concluded/closed as per approval of the Competent Authority. It is categorically stated that there is no such guidelines/practice regarding updating the status of complaint to complainant other than CVC portal/CVC.
3.2 Further, it is stated that notings in the relevant file contains names of the investigating officer(s) and details of other employees of this organization (third parties). Accordingly, non-disclosure of the same under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, is upheld.
3.3 With respect to S.no. 2.6, it is informed that as per records in the relevant file of vigilance department of AAI, there is no document(s) pertaining to correspondence between the RTI appellant and Northern Region Rangpuri office of AAI, accordingly 3.4 Also, it is observed that for point no. 5 & 7 of original RTI application No. ΑΑΟΙΝ/R/E/24/00445 dated 08.02.2024, the custodian of information is GM [HR], Northern Region. Accordingly, this RTI first appeal is transferred to RED, NR to direct the concerned CPIO to provide information against point no. 5 & 7 of the original RTI application."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 23.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO, AAI furnishing a detailed account of the complaint filed by the Appellant who had booked 6 rooms in AAI Transit Guest House, Vasant Kunj between 25.02.2022-27.02.2022 Page 2 of 4 for a private ceremony and in accordance with AAI Rules had taken a temporary electricity connection from BSES for lawn area of the guest house for 26.02.2022.
While the electricity connection was disconnected by BSES on 01.03.2025, the Appellant suspected power theft on 28.02.2022, when the meter was installed in her name and misuse by AAI officials by providing power connection at someone else's function held on 28.02.2022. Accordingly she registered a grievance with BSES vide letter dated 31.08.2022 and was informed by BSES that energy consumption was correctly recorded in the meter from 26.02.2022 1700 hrs to 27.02.2022 0100 hrs and no meter usage on or after 28.02.2022, no financial disadvantage caused to her and no request for temporary meter connection was received for the guest house for 28.02.2022. She wrote a complaint dated 22.03.2023 to the CVO, AAI in this regard and upon investigation no vigilance angle was found, hence it was logically concluded as per approval of competent authority. The Respondent concluded the submission as under:
"It is observed that the complaint dated 22.03.2023 filed by the appellant, Ms. Tilottama Lahiri was duly examined based on updated CVC Manual 2021. Since no vigilance angle was established in the complaint, the same was closed as per approval of the Competent Authority. Accordingly, the information as sought by the appellant regarding copy of inquiry report & copy of the decision of the Competent Authority (S.No. 1 & 2 of the original RTI application) is being disclosed after due severance of the exempted categories of information (names of the investigation officers and other third-party information) in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act, 2005.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Represented by Shri Subrata Lahiri Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg - AGM(E-E); Shri Sachin Kumar Mittal and Ms. Kanishka Tayal -AM(Vig.) were present during hearing.
The Appellant's representative contended that though most of the information had been furnished by the Respondent, the Enquiry Report received by him contained a lot of the portions wherein information had been redacted and hence the accuracy of the Enquiry could not be ascertained.
The Respondent averred that information available on record had been duly provided to the Appellant, as admitted by her husband. Explaining the aforementioned contention of the Appellant, the Respondent stated that only the information which fell within the exemption clause as enlisted under Section 8 of the RTI Act had been redacted from the Enquiry Report, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing submissions of both parties, it is evident that appropriate reply based on records available with the public authority had been sent by the PIO, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
It is noted that the written submission dated 23.07.2025 filed by the Respondent before the Commission contains complete and self explanatory information. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to send a copy of the written submission dated 23.07.2025, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall also submit a compliance report in this regard Page 3 of 4 before the Commission, within one week thereafter. No further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)