Central Information Commission
Arun vs Indian Air Force on 16 April, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IAIRF/A/2023/609935
Arun .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dept. of Military Affairs,
AIR HQ, Room No. 165, Vayu
Bhawan, New Delhi -110106 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10-04-2024
Date of Decision : 15-04-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01-09-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 13-11-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01-09-2022 seeking the following information:
"This information is required to be sought under Right to Information act, 2005 from Airforce Station Arjangarh (503 SU).Page 1 of 4
1. Is it compulsory to take subscription of movie played in 503 SU, Airforce for officers/airmen posted to 503 SU, Airforce and its lodger unit? If so, attach authority for the same.
2. How much profit has been made till 31 Aug 2022 from playing movie at 503 SU, AF?"
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13-11-2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri M K Sharma, CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, Shri Manoj Kumar Verma, UDC and Shri Abhijeet Prasad, US (Air-II) appeared in person.
The respondent, while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 22.03.2024 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant para of the written submission is reproduced as under:
"(a) That, the appellant has filed the instant appeal against the disposal given by the CPIO, HQ WAC of his RTI application dated 01 Sep 2022.
(b) That, the RTI application dated 01 Sep 2022 preferred by Adv Arun Bhardwaj (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') was received at this HQ on 04 Nov 2022 on transfer from CPIO, Air HQ (VB) vide Air HQ/23401/204/4/1/E/PS dated 19 Oct 2022. (Copy attached as Annexure 'I').
(c) That, the information sought by the appellant through his above mentioned RTI application was provided to him vide letter No.WAC/2906/13/6/334/22/CPIO dated 02 Dec 2022 (Copy attached as Annexure 'II').
d) That, the reply given by CPIO is as under :-
"Your said application has been considered at this HQ and it is informed that, the information sought vide ibid application is pertaining to Service Page 2 of 4 Institute (SI), which is a Non-Public Fund venture, not falling under the definition of Public Authority as per Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005".
"In view of the above, Service Institute (SI) being a Non- Public Fund venture, the sought information is neither available with this public authority nor can be accessed from the said Service Institute (SI). Therefore, the undersigned is constrained to provide any information in this regard".
(e) Response to the RTI application of the appellant was given within the stipulated time.
(f) The First Appeal dated 13 Nov 2022, as mentioned by the appellant in his second appeal was or has not been received at this HQ till date.
(f) The First Appeal dated 13 Nov 2022, as mentioned by the appellant in his second appeal has not been received at this HQ till date.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the application of the appellant was disposed of with a reasoned reply. The same was as per the provisions of RTI Act. The application was pertaining to Service Institute (SI), which is a Non-Public Fund venture. The same do not fall under the definition of Public Authority as per Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005. The information, as sought, was neither available with the public authority nor could have been accessed from the said Service Institute (SI). Therefore, the CPIΟ was constrained to provide any information in this regard. Similar stand has also been upheld by the Hon'ble CIC in its various judgments. The Second Appeal may therefore deserve to be dismissed being devoid of merit and lack in substance."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that point-wise reply has been given by the respondent vide letters dated 02-12-2022. A copy of the reply was placed on record. The respondent during the hearing stated that the application was related to Service Institute (SI), which is a Non-Public Fund venture. As per the respondent it (SI) does fall under the definition of "Public Authority' as per Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005. The information, as sought, was neither available with the public authority nor could have been accessed from the said Service Institute (SI). Therefore, they expressed their inability to Page 3 of 4 provide the information. Besides, they informed that the first appeal was not received by them. The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. The submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission finds that reply given by the respondent is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and intervention is not called for in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)