Central Information Commission
Mrr Veeraswamy vs Airport Authority Of India on 19 December, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/901894-YA
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/901895-YA
Date of Hearing : 19.12.2014
Date of Decision : 19.12.2014
Appellant : Shri R. Veeraswamy
Madurai
Respondent : Shri G.L. Verma, CPIO/AGM(HR)
Shri N.V. Subbarayudu, Dy. CVO Airports Authority of India, New Delhi & Shri V. Venugopal, PIO Shri S. Ravi, GM Chennai Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.10.2012 & 22.12.2012
PIO replied on : 29.10.2012 & 18.01.2013
First Appeal filed on : 10.11.2012 & 24.01.2013
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : No order & 14.02.2013
Second Appeal received on : 26.02.2013
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/901894-YA
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2012, seeking names and designations of AAI officials/AAI ECPF Trustees chargesheeted by CBI or subjected to departmental enquiry along with current status of the cases etc. PIO/GM(HR) provided the names of officials against whom the departmental enquiry was completed and transferred the RTI application on point 1 to PIO, Vigilance Directorate and point 3 to PIO, F&A Directorate to furnish the information directly to the appellant. PIO/GM(Vig.) vide letter dated 05.11.2012 stated that as the information on point 1 pertain to CBI, which is an exempted organisation, the information cannot be provided.
The appellant is not present. The respondent from the Vigilance Dept. reiterated his stand and stated as the information pertains to CBI, the same was not given. On query by the Commission as to whether information could have been provided if the same would not have pertained to the CBI, the respondent was unable to reply. The respondent from HR dept. stated that they have provided information on point 2. On query by the Commission whether any information was provided by PIO, F&A, the respondent stated that there is no information available in their record whether the requisite information was provided from the F&A Dept. F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/901895-YA The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 22.12.2012, seeking information regarding Annual Property Returns submitted by Shri D. Devaraj for the years 2005 to 2011 along with copies of Form 16 issued to him by AAI for financial years 2004-05 to 2011-12. PIO/GM(Sngg.)-SR, Chennai denied information u/ss 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA in his order, while upholding the decision of PIO, stated that the appellant is seeking personal information of Shri D. Devaraj, who was appointed as an Inquiry Officer in a disciplinary case initiated by the competent authority, as required by the CBI, wherein the appellant was a charged officer.
The appellant is not present. The PIO stated that the information was denied u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, as the same was held in fiduciary capacity. Moreover, the same is personal information of a third party.
Decision:
In F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/901894-YA, the Commission is of the view that the information sought on Point 1 is personal information, disclosure of which serves no public interest. The same being pertaining to CBI or not would have been a secondary element. Primarily, the information is personal information and cannot be provided to the appellant u/s 8(1)(j). The PIO/Vig. should have replied to the appellant, after taking due cognizance of the information sought in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Similarly, PIO/GM(HR) provided information on Point 2 relating to the employees charge-sheeted, which is, again, personal information, disclosure of which serves no public interest.
The Gujarat High Court in Reliance Industries Ltd. V. Gujarat State Information (AIR 2007 Guj 203) held, "16. Procedure to be followed when order is against third party:
Right to get information and right to treat the particular information as confidential is to be seen through the provisions of the Act, 2005 by Public Information Officer before disclosing the information because once the information is disclosed, which is confidential, it is extremely difficult for the higher/Appellate Courts to put the clock back. Release of information is like air or smell. Once it is allowed to spread over, it cannot be called back, by Appellate Forums. ...Once information is allowed to go in the hand of applicant, it is irreversible process. It makes practically First Appeal or Second Appeal or Writ petition, infructuous or every time relief will have to be moulded. ..."
In view of the above, Chairman, AAI is directed to take note of the manner in which the PIOs have dealt with this matter, for deemed fit action. Further, the Commission recommends that a training programme be conducted so that PIOs/FAAs can be made well-acquainted with the manner in which RTI applications are to be dealt with along with the implementation of the provisions of the Act.
Also, there is no reply from the PIO/F&A on record, therefore, PIO/F&A is directed to provide a reply to the appellant on Point 3, after taking due cognizance of the information sought, within two weeks of receipt of this order. If the information has already been provided to the appellant, a copy of the same be furnished before the Commission for its record.
In F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/901895-YA, the Commission upholds the CPIO/FAA's decision and no further action is required in the matter.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar