Central Information Commission
Sanjeev Sharma vs Indian Air Force on 31 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067.
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
In the matter of:
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma Adv.
2149, Jalvayu Vihar, Sec. 67, Mohali-160062
...Appellant
Vs
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Defence
HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena Nagar, Nagpur- 440007 Maharasthra
&
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Defence
HQ, TC, IAF, Bengaluru 560006
&
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Defence
HQ South Western Command, IAF, Sec.9, Gandhinagar, Gujarat- 382009
&
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Defence
Hq ,Central Air Command, Indian Air Force, Bamrauli, Allahabad-211012
&
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Defence
Hq,Eastern Air Command,IAF, Nonglyer Post, Upper Shillong, Meghalaya- 793009
&
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Defence
HQ, WAC, Subroto Park, New Delhi-110010
&
Central Public Information Officer
M/o Defence
HQ, SAC, IAF, Akkulum, Trivandrum, Kerala-695011
...Respondents
Date of hearings:
30.12.2016, 02.01.2017, 03.01.2017, 04.01.2017, 06.01.2017, 09.01.2017, 11.01.2017, 12.01.2017, 13.01.2017, 16.01.2017, 18.01.2017, 19.01.2017, 23.01.2017 1 Date of hearing File No. Subject Matter Command 30.12.2016 1 CIC/CC/A/2015/000371 SNCO HQ,WAC,Subroto park ,New Delhi-110010
2 CIC/CC/A/2015/000374 SNCO 3 CIC/CC/A/2015/002143 SNCO Hq South Western, Air Command,IAF, Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009 4 CIC/CC/A/2016/000860 SNCO HQ, MC, IAF, NAGPUR 5 CIC/CC/A/2016/000732 SNCO 6 CIC/CC/A/2016/000814 SNCO 7 CIC/RK/A/2016/000328 SNCO Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad 8 CIC/RK/A/2016/000327 SNCO 9 CIC/RK/A/2016/000323 SNCO 10 CIC/RK/A/2016/000326 SNCO 11 CIC/RK/A/2016/000324 SNCO 12 CIC/RK/A/2016/000321 SNCO 13 CIC/RK/A/2016/000455 SNCO 14 CIC/RK/A/2016/000446 SNCO 15 CIC/RK/A/2016/000325 SNCO 16 CIC/CC/A/2016/000341 SNCO HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum 17 CIC/CC/A/2016/000340 SNCO 18 CIC/CC/A/2016/000338 SNCO 02-01-2017 19 CIC/CC/A/2015/000242 Tree Hq Maintenance Command,IAF, Nagpur 20 CIC/CC/A/2016/000221 Tree HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum 21 CIC/CC/A/2016/000322 Tree 22 CIC/CC/A/2016/000335 Tree 23 CIC/CC/A/2016/000336 Tree 24 CIC/CC/A/2016/000323 Tree 25 CIC/CC/A/2016/000361 Computer HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum 26 CIC/VS/A/2015/002780 Saso HQ Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad 27 CIC/VS/A/2015/002820 Saso HQ 28 CIC/VS/A/2015/002839 CADMO Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad 29 CIC/VS/A/2015/002844 CADMO 30 CIC/VS/A/2015/003001 CADMO 31 CIC/VS/A/2015/003000 CADMO 32 CIC/VS/A/2015/002893 CADMO 33 CIC/VS/A/2015/002892 CADMO 34 CIC/VS/A/2015/002869 CADMO 35 CIC/VS/A/2015/002866 CADMO 03-01-2017 36 CIC/CC/A/2015/001018 CSD URC Hq South Western, Command,IAF, Sector-9, Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009 37 CIC/RK/A/2016/000129 CSD URC 38 CIC/RK/A/2016/000095 CSD URC 39 CIC/RK/A/2016/000130 CSD URC 40 CIC/RK/A/2016/000132 CSD URC 41 CIC/VS/A/2015/002319 CSD URC HQ,WAC,Subroto park ,New Delhi-110010 2 42 CIC/CC/A/2016/000902 CSD URC Hq,Eastern Air Command,IAF, Nonglyer Post, Uppar Shillong, Meghalaya- 793009 43 CIC/CC/A/2016/000864 CSD URC 44 CIC/CC/A/2015/001501 CSD URC 45 CIC/CC/A/2015/000175 CSD URC HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007 46 CIC/CC/A/2015/000185 CSD URC 47 CIC/CC/A/2015/000240 CSD URC 48 CIC/CC/A/2015/000256 CSD URC 49 CIC/CC/A/2016/000876 CSD URC 50 CIC/CC/A/2015/000241 CSD URC 51 CIC/RK/A/2016/000460 CSD URC HQ, Training Command, Indian Air Force, JC POST,BENGALURU-
560006 52 CIC/RK/A/2016/000471 CSD URC 53 CIC/RK/A/2016/000470 CSD URC 54 CIC/RK/A/2016/000467 CSD URC 55 CIC/RK/A/2016/000300 CSD URC Hq ,Central Air Command, IAF, Bamrauli, Allahabad-12 56 CIC/RK/A/2016/000299 CSD URC 57 CIC/RK/A/2016/000298 CSD URC 58 CIC/RK/A/2016/000292 CSD URC 59 CIC/RK/A/2016/000297 CSD URC 60 CIC/RK/A/2016/000296 CSD URC 61 CIC/RK/A/2016/000291 CSD URC 62 CIC/RK/A/2016/000288 CSD URC 63 CIC/CC/A/2016/000357 CSD URC HQ SAC, IAF,Akkulum, Trivandrum-Kerela 695011 64 CIC/CC/A/2016/000356 CSD URC 04-01-2017 65 CIC/VS/A/2015/002882 SMSO HQ Allahabad 0532-2640657 / 2640691/ 9451072915 66 CIC/VS/A/2015/002816 SMSO HQ 67 CIC/VS/A/2015/003009 SMSO HQ Hq South Western, Command,IAF, Sector-9, Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009 68 CIC/RK/A/2016/000259 AOC IN C Allahabad 0532-2640657 / 2640691/ 9451072915 69 CIC/RK/A/2016/000260 AOC IN C 70 CIC/RK/A/2016/000264 AOC IN C 71 CIC/VS/A/2015/003002 AOC IN C 72 CIC/VS/A/2015/002975 AOC IN C 73 CIC/VS/A/2015/002991 AOC IN C 74 CIC/VS/A/2015/002992 AOC IN C 75 CIC/VS/A/2015/002979 AOC IN C 76 CIC/VS/A/2015/002870 AOC IN C 77 CIC/VS/A/2015/002860 AOC IN C 78 CIC/VS/A/2015/002862 AOC IN C 79 CIC/VS/A/2015/002817 AOC IN C 80 CIC/VS/A/2015/002815 AOC IN C 81 CIC/VS/A/2015/002918 AOC IN C Hq South Western, Command,IAF, Sector-9, Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009 3 82 CIC/VS/A/2015/003005 AOC IN C 83 CIC/VS/A/2015/003004 AOC IN C 84 CIC/VS/A/2015/003006 AOC IN C 85 CIC/VS/A/2015/002894 AOC IN C 86 CIC/VS/A/2015/002887 AOC IN C 87 CIC/VS/A/2015/002917 AOC IN C 88 CIC/CC/A/2015/001017 AOC IN C 89 CIC/VS/A/2015/002623 AOC IN C 90 CIC/VS/A/2015/003003 AOC IN C 91 CIC/VS/A/2015/003007 AOC IN C 92 CIC/CC/A/2016/000563 AOC IN C HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum 93 CIC/CC/A/2016/000564 AOC IN C 94 CIC/CC/A/2016/000565 AOC IN C 95 CIC/CC/A/2016/000566 AOC IN C 96 CIC/CC/A/2016/000567 AOC IN C 97 CIC/CC/A/2016/000364 AOC IN C 98 CIC/CC/A/2016/000332 AOC IN C 99 CIC/CC/A/2016/000333 AOC IN C 100 CIC/CC/A/2016/000334 AOC IN C 101 CIC/CC/A/2016/000331 AOC IN C 102 CIC/CC/A/2016/000362 AOC IN C 103 CIC/CC/A/2016/000363 AOC IN C 104 CIC/CC/A/2016/000859 AOC IN C HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007 105 CIC/CC/A/2016/000996 AOC IN C 106 CIC/CC/A/2016/000995 AOC IN C 107 CIC/CC/A/2016/000993 AOC IN C 108 CIC/VS/A/2015/002787 AOC IN C 109 CIC/VS/A/2015/002978 AOC IN C 110 CIC/VS/A/2015/002981 AOC IN C 111 CIC/VS/A/2015/002983 AOC IN C 112 CIC/VS/A/2015/002985 AOC IN C 113 CIC/VS/A/2015/002988 AOC IN C 114 CIC/VS/A/2015/002990 AOC IN C 115 CIC/VS/A/2015/002803 AOC IN C 116 CIC/VS/A/2015/002797 AOC IN C 117 CIC/CC/A/2015/000237 AOC IN C 118 CIC/CC/A/2015/000283 AOC IN C 119 CIC/CC/A/2015/000285 AOC IN C 120 CIC/CC/A/2015/000176 AOC IN C 121 CIC/CC/A/2015/000115 AOC IN C 122 CIC/CC/A/2015/000113 AOC IN C 123 CIC/VS/A/2015/002793 AOC IN C 124 CIC/VS/A/2015/002801 AOC IN C 125 CIC/VS/A/2015/002706 AOC IN C 126 CIC/VS/A/2015/002782 AOC IN C 127 CIC/VS/A/2015/002792 AOC IN C 128 CIC/VS/A/2015/002791 AOC IN C 129 CIC/CC/A/2016/000717 AOC IN C HQ, Training Command, Indian Air Force, JC POST,BENGALURU-
560006
130 CIC/CC/A/2016/000978 AOC IN C
131 CIC/CC/A/2016/000979 AOC IN C
132 CIC/AB/A/2016/000225 AOC IN C Hq,Eastern Air
Command,IAF, Nonglyer
4
Post, Uppar Shillong,
Meghalaya- 793009
133 CIC/AB/A/2016/000088 AOC IN C
134 CIC/AB/A/2016/000087 AOC IN C
135 CIC/AB/A/2016/000214 AOC IN C
136 CIC/AB/A/2016/000165 AOC IN C
137 CIC/AB/A/2016/000164 AOC IN C
138 CIC/AB/A/2016/000163 AOC IN C
139 CIC/AB/A/2016/000162 AOC IN C
140 CIC/AB/A/2016/000286 AOC IN C
141 CIC/AB/A/2016/000285 AOC IN C
142 CIC/AB/A/2016/000284 AOC IN C
143 CIC/AB/A/2016/000283 AOC IN C
144 CIC/AB/A/2016/000138 AOC IN C
145 CIC/AB/A/2016/000137 AOC IN C
146 CIC/AB/A/2016/000136 AOC IN C
147 CIC/AB/A/2016/000135 AOC IN C
148 CIC/AB/A/2016/000134 AOC IN C
149 CIC/AB/A/2016/000131 AOC IN C
150 CIC/AB/A/2016/000130 AOC IN C
151 CIC/AB/A/2016/000129 AOC IN C
152 CIC/AB/A/2016/000128 AOC IN C
153 CIC/AB/A/2016/000127 AOC IN C
154 CIC/AB/A/2016/000126 AOC IN C
155 CIC/AB/A/2016/000125 AOC IN C
156 CIC/AB/A/2016/000124 AOC IN C
157 CIC/AB/A/2016/000123 AOC IN C
158 CIC/AB/A/2016/000122 AOC IN C
159 CIC/AB/A/2016/000121 AOC IN C
160 CIC/AB/A/2016/000120 AOC IN C
161 CIC/AB/A/2016/000119 AOC IN C
162 CIC/AB/A/2016/000118 AOC IN C
163 CIC/AB/A/2016/000092 AOC IN C
164 CIC/AB/A/2016/000091 AOC IN C
165 CIC/AB/A/2016/000090 AOC IN C
166 CIC/AB/A/2016/000089 AOC IN C
167 CIC/AB/A/2016/000084 AOC IN C
168 CIC/AB/A/2016/000083 AOC IN C
169 CIC/AB/A/2016/000081 AOC IN C
170 CIC/AB/A/2016/000103 AOC IN C
171 CIC/AB/A/2016/000102 AOC IN C
172 CIC/AB/A/2016/000101 AOC IN C
173 CIC/AB/A/2016/000099 AOC IN C
174 CIC/AB/A/2016/000098 AOC IN C
175 CIC/AB/A/2016/000096 AOC IN C
176 CIC/AB/A/2016/000095 AOC IN C
177 CIC/AB/A/2016/000094 AOC IN C
178 CIC/AB/A/2016/000117 AOC IN C
179 CIC/AB/A/2016/000116 AOC IN C
180 CIC/AB/A/2016/000115 AOC IN C
181 CIC/AB/A/2016/000113 AOC IN C
182 CIC/AB/A/2016/000112 AOC IN C
183 CIC/AB/A/2016/000110 AOC IN C
184 CIC/AB/A/2016/000109 AOC IN C
185 CIC/AB/A/2016/000108 AOC IN C
186 CIC/AB/A/2016/000107 AOC IN C
5
187 CIC/AB/A/2016/000105 AOC IN C
188 CIC/AB/A/2016/000104 AOC IN C
189 CIC/AB/A/2016/000093 AOC IN C
190 CIC/AB/A/2016/000139 AOC IN C
191 CIC/AB/A/2016/000205 AOC IN C
192 CIC/AB/A/2016/000204 AOC IN C
193 CIC/AB/A/2016/000202 AOC IN C
194 CIC/AB/A/2016/000201 AOC IN C
195 CIC/AB/A/2016/000199 AOC IN C
196 CIC/AB/A/2016/000197 AOC IN C
197 CIC/AB/A/2016/000196 AOC IN C
198 CIC/AB/A/2016/000194 AOC IN C
199 CIC/AB/A/2016/000192 AOC IN C
200 CIC/AB/A/2016/000166 AOC IN C
201 CIC/AB/A/2016/000167 AOC IN C
202 CIC/AB/A/2016/000086 AOC IN C
203 CIC/AB/A/2016/000085 AOC IN C
204 CIC/AB/A/2016/000282 AOC IN C
205 CIC/AB/A/2016/000281 AOC IN C
206 CIC/AB/A/2016/000280 AOC IN C
207 CIC/AB/A/2016/000279 AOC IN C
208 CIC/AB/A/2016/000278 AOC IN C
209 CIC/AB/A/2016/000276 AOC IN C
210 CIC/AB/A/2016/000275 AOC IN C
211 CIC/AB/A/2016/000274 AOC IN C
212 CIC/AB/A/2016/000231 AOC IN C
213 CIC/AB/A/2016/000229 AOC IN C
214 CIC/AB/A/2016/000227 AOC IN C
215 CIC/AB/A/2016/000226 AOC IN C
216 CIC/AB/A/2016/000222 AOC IN C
217 CIC/AB/A/2016/000221 AOC IN C
218 CIC/AB/A/2016/000217 AOC IN C
219 CIC/AB/A/2016/000216 AOC IN C
220 CIC/AB/A/2016/000215 AOC IN C
221 CIC/AB/A/2016/000191 AOC IN C
222 CIC/AB/A/2016/000189 AOC IN C
223 CIC/AB/A/2016/000188 AOC IN C
224 CIC/AB/A/2016/000186 AOC IN C
225 CIC/AB/A/2016/000171 AOC IN C
226 CIC/AB/A/2016/000170 AOC IN C
227 CIC/AB/A/2016/000169 AOC IN C
228 CIC/AB/A/2016/000168 AOC IN C
229 CIC/AB/A/2016/000211 AOC IN C
230 CIC/AB/A/2016/000210 AOC IN C
231 CIC/AB/A/2016/000206 AOC IN C
232 CIC/VS/A/2015/002258 AOC IN C
233 CIC/VS/A/2015/002246 AOC IN C
234 CIC/VS/A/2015/002404 AOC IN C HQ,WAC,Subroto park ,New
Delhi-110010
235 CIC/CC/A/2015/000622 AOC IN C
236 CIC/VS/A/2015/002405 AOC IN C
237 CIC/VS/A/2015/002696 AOC IN C
238 CIC/VS/A/2015/002205 AOC IN C
239 CIC/CC/A/2015/000614 AOC IN C
240 CIC/CC/A/2015/000613 AOC IN C
06-01-2017 241 CIC/CC/A/2016/000832 PIO CPIO Hq South Western,
6
Command,IAF, Sector-9,
Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009
242 CIC/CC/A/2016/000833 PIO CPIO
243 CIC/CC/A/2016/000834 PIO CPIO
244 CIC/CC/A/2016/000828 PIO CPIO
245 CIC/CC/A/2016/000829 PIO CPIO
246 CIC/CC/A/2016/000830 PIO CPIO
247 CIC/CC/A/2016/000823 PIO CPIO
248 CIC/CC/A/2016/000825 PIO CPIO
249 CIC/CC/A/2016/000827 PIO CPIO
250 CIC/CC/A/2016/000831 PIO CPIO
251 CIC/RK/A/2016/000364 PIO CPIO Hq,Eastern Air
Command,IAF, Nonglyer
Post, Uppar Shillong,
Meghalaya- 793009
252 CIC/AB/A/2016/000288 PIO CPIO
253 CIC/RK/A/2016/000356 PIO CPIO
254 CIC/AB/A/2016/000082 PIO CPIO
255 CIC/AB/A/2016/000080 PIO CPIO
256 CIC/AB/A/2016/000133 PIO CPIO
257 CIC/AB/A/2016/000277 PIO CPIO
258 CIC/AB/A/2016/000230 PIO CPIO
259 CIC/AB/A/2016/000228 PIO CPIO
260 CIC/AB/A/2016/000224 PIO CPIO
261 CIC/AB/A/2016/000223 PIO CPIO
262 CIC/AB/A/2016/000219 PIO CPIO
263 CIC/AB/A/2016/000218 PIO CPIO
264 CIC/AB/A/2016/000213 PIO CPIO
265 CIC/AB/A/2016/000287 PIO CPIO
266 CIC/AB/A/2016/000212 PIO CPIO
267 CIC/AB/A/2016/000208 PIO CPIO
268 CIC/AB/A/2016/000198 PIO CPIO
269 CIC/AB/A/2016/000193 PIO CPIO
270 CIC/AB/A/2016/000187 PIO CPIO
271 CIC/AB/A/2016/000190 PIO CPIO
272 CIC/AB/A/2016/000195 PIO CPIO
273 CIC/VS/A/2015/002818 PIO CPIO HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
274 CIC/VS/A/2015/002131 PIO CPIO
275 CIC/VS/A/2015/002132 PIO CPIO
276 CIC/VS/A/2015/002134 PIO CPIO
277 CIC/VS/A/2015/002133 PIO CPIO
278 CIC/CC/A/2015/000246 PIO CPIO
279 CIC/VS/A/2015/002136 PIO CPIO
280 CIC/VS/A/2015/002135 PIO CPIO
281 CIC/VS/A/2015/002341 PIO CPIO
282 CIC/VS/A/2015/003355 PIO CPIO
283 CIC/VS/A/2015/003328 PIO CPIO
284 CIC/VS/A/2015/003315 PIO CPIO
285 CIC/VS/A/2015/002336 PIO CPIO
286 CIC/VS/A/2015/002334 PIO CPIO
09-01-2017 287 CIC/RK/A/2016/000265 DSC Messes Hq,Eastern Air
Command,IAF, Nonglyer
Post, Uppar Shillong,
Meghalaya- 793009
288 CIC/RK/A/2016/000263 DSC Messes
289 CIC/RK/A/2016/000320 DSC Messes
7
290 CIC/RK/A/2016/000319 DSC Messes
291 CIC/RK/A/2016/000281 DSC Messes
292 CIC/RK/A/2016/000271 DSC Messes
293 CIC/VS/A/2015/002812 DSC Messes HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
294 CIC/VS/A/2015/002400 DSC Messes
295 CIC/VS/A/2015/002128 DSC Messes
296 CIC/VS/A/2015/002832 DSC Messes
297 CIC/VS/A/2015/002855 DSC Messes
298 CIC/VS/A/2015/002857 DSC Messes
299 CIC/VS/A/2015/002896 DSC Messes
300 CIC/CC/A/2015/000219 DSC Messes
301 CIC/CC/A/2016/000103 DSC Messes HQ,WAC,Subroto park ,New
Delhi-110010
302 CIC/CC/A/2016/000101 DSC Messes
303 CIC/CC/A/2016/000099 DSC Messes
304 CIC/CC/A/2015/000406 DSC Messes
305 CIC/CC/A/2015/000427 DSC Messes
306 CIC/CC/A/2015/000335 DSC Messes
307 CIC/CC/A/2015/000334 DSC Messes
308 CIC/CC/A/2015/000379 DSC Messes
309 CIC/CC/A/2015/000336 DSC Messes
310 CIC/CC/A/2015/000338 DSC Messes
311 CIC/CC/A/2015/000337 DSC Messes
312 CIC/CC/A/2015/001329 DSC Messes Hq South Western,
Command,IAF, Sector-
9,Gandhinagar, Gujrat-
382009
313 CIC/CC/A/2015/001331 DSC Messes
314 CIC/CC/A/2015/001330 DSC Messes
11-01-2017 315 CIC/CC/A/2015/000117 Income Expenditure HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
316 CIC/CC/A/2015/000121 Income Expenditure
317 CIC/CC/A/2015/001670 Income Expenditure
318 CIC/CC/A/2015/000116 Income Expenditure
319 CIC/CC/A/2015/000123 Income Expenditure
320 CIC/CC/A/2015/000122 Income Expenditure
321 CIC/CC/A/2015/001502 Income Expenditure Hq,Eastern Air
Command,IAF, Nonglyer
Post, Uppar Shillong,
Meghalaya- 793009
322 CIC/CC/A/2015/001469 Income Expenditure
323 CIC/CC/A/2015/001332 Income Expenditure
324 CIC/CC/A/2015/001322 Income Expenditure Hq South Western,
Command,IAF, Sector-9,
Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009
325 CIC/CC/A/2015/001319 Income Expenditure
326 CIC/CC/A/2015/001321 Income Expenditure
327 CIC/CC/A/2015/001320 Income Expenditure
328 CIC/RK/A/2016/000011 Animal HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
329 CIC/RK/A/2016/000010 Animal
8
330 CIC/RK/A/2016/000012 Animal
331 CIC/RK/A/2016/000013 Animal
332 CIC/CC/A/2016/000983 Animal
333 CIC/CC/A/2016/000990 Animal
334 CIC/CC/A/2016/000678 Animal
335 CIC/CC/A/2015/001381 Animal Hq South Western,
Command,IAF, Sector-9,
Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009
336 CIC/CC/A/2015/001380 Animal
337 CIC/CC/A/2015/001378 Animal
338 CIC/CC/A/2015/001377 Animal
339 CIC/CC/A/2016/000325 Animal HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum
340 CIC/CC/A/2016/000324 Animal
341 CIC/CC/A/2016/000330 Animal
342 CIC/CC/A/2016/000329 Animal
343 CIC/CC/A/2016/000328 Animal
344 CIC/CC/A/2016/000327 Animal
345 CIC/CC/A/2016/000326 Animal
12-01-2017 346 CIC/CC/A/2015/001527 AFWWA Hq South Western,
Command,IAF, Sector-9,
Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009
347 CIC/CC/A/2015/001496 AFWWA
348 CIC/CC/A/2016/000937 AFWWA
349 CIC/CC/A/2015/000173 AFWWA HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
350 CIC/CC/A/2015/001314 AFWWA
351 CIC/CC/A/2015/000187 AFWWA
352 CIC/CC/A/2015/000188 AFWWA
353 CIC/CC/A/2015/000405 AFWWA
354 CIC/VS/A/2015/000054 AFWWA
355 CIC/CC/A/2016/000747 AFWWA
356 CIC/RK/A/2016/000003 AFWWA
357 CIC/RK/A/2016/000004 AFWWA
358 CIC/RK/A/2016/000008 AFWWA
359 CIC/RK/A/2016/000009 AFWWA
360 CIC/VS/A/2015/003192 AFWWA HQ,WAC, Subroto park ,New
Delhi-110010
361 CIC/VS/A/2015/003352 AFWWA
362 CIC/VS/A/2015/003194 AFWWA
363 CIC/VS/A/2015/003369 AFWWA
364 CIC/VS/A/2015/003193 AFWWA
365 CIC/VS/A/2015/003327 AFWWA
366 CIC/VS/A/2015/003367 AFWWA
367 CIC/VS/A/2015/003368 AFWWA
368 CIC/VS/A/2015/003370 AFWWA
369 CIC/VS/A/2015/003371 AFWWA
370 CIC/VS/A/2015/003372 AFWWA
371 CIC/VS/A/2015/003373 AFWWA
372 CIC/VS/A/2015/003381 AFWWA
373 CIC/VS/A/2015/003374 AFWWA
374 CIC/VS/A/2015/003354 AFWWA
375 CIC/VS/A/2015/003326 AFWWA
376 CIC/VS/A/2015/003426 AFWWA
377 CIC/VS/A/2015/003366 AFWWA
378 CIC/VS/A/2016/000345 AFWWA HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum
13-01-2017 379 CIC/RK/A/2016/000066 House and Flats Hq South Western,
9
Command,IAF, Sector-9,
Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009
380 CIC/CC/A/2015/001358 House and Flats
381 CIC/CC/A/2015/001327 House and Flats
382 CIC/RK/A/2016/000348 House and Flats Hq,Eastern Air
Command,IAF, Nonglyer
Post, Uppar Shillong,
Meghalaya- 793009
383 CIC/RK/A/2016/000347 House and Flats
384 CIC/RK/A/2016/000346 House and Flats
385 CIC/RK/A/2016/000350 House and Flats
386 CIC/RK/A/2016/000352 House and Flats
387 CIC/AB/A/2016/000295 House and Flats
388 CIC/RK/A/2016/000289 House and Flats
389 CIC/AB/A/2016/000100 House and Flats
390 CIC/AB/A/2016/000097 House and Flats
391 CIC/AB/A/2016/000114 House and Flats
392 CIC/AB/A/2016/000112 House and Flats
393 CIC/AB/A/2016/000111 House and Flats
394 CIC/AB/A/2016/000106 House and Flats
395 CIC/AB/A/2016/000145 House and Flats
396 CIC/AB/A/2016/000148 House and Flats
397 CIC/AB/A/2016/000147 House and Flats
398 CIC/AB/A/2016/000146 House and Flats
399 CIC/AB/A/2016/000291 House and Flats
400 CIC/AB/A/2016/000292 House and Flats
401 CIC/AB/A/2016/000293 House and Flats
402 CIC/AB/A/2016/000294 House and Flats
403 CIC/AB/A/2016/000290 House and Flats
404 CIC/AB/A/2016/000289 House and Flats
405 CIC/AB/A/2016/000207 House and Flats
406 CIC/AB/A/2016/000203 House and Flats
407 CIC/AB/A/2016/000200 House and Flats
408 CIC/VS/A/2015/002913 House and Flats HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
409 CIC/VS/A/2015/002915 House and Flats
410 CIC/VS/A/2015/002909 House and Flats
411 CIC/VS/A/2015/002905 House and Flats
412 CIC/VS/A/2015/002907 House and Flats
413 CIC/VS/A/2015/002908 House and Flats
414 CIC/SA/A/2015/001462 House and Flats
415 CIC/VS/A/2015/002916 House and Flats
416 CIC/VS/A/2015/002903 House and Flats
417 CIC/VS/A/2015/002899 House and Flats
418 CIC/VS/A/2015/002901 House and Flats
419 CIC/VS/A/2015/002914 House and Flats
420 CIC/VS/A/2015/002912 House and Flats
421 CIC/CC/A/2016/000366 House and Flats HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum
422 CIC/CC/A/2016/000367 House and Flats
423 CIC/CC/A/2016/000365 House and Flats
424 CIC/CC/A/2016/000124 House and Flats HQ,WAC, Subroto park ,New
Delhi-110010
425 CIC/VS/A/2015/003359 House and Flats
426 CIC/VS/A/2015/003331 House and Flats
427 CIC/VS/A/2015/003313 House and Flats
428 CIC/VS/A/2015/003324 House and Flats
429 CIC/VS/A/2015/003330 House and Flats
10
430 CIC/VS/A/2015/003333 House and Flats
431 CIC/VS/A/2015/003316 House and Flats
432 CIC/VS/A/2015/003322 House and Flats
433 CIC/VS/A/2015/003320 House and Flats
434 CIC/VS/A/2015/003335 House and Flats
435 CIC/VS/A/2015/003318 House and Flats
436 CIC/CC/A/2015/001310 House and Flats
437 CIC/VS/A/2015/003184 House and Flats
438 CIC/VS/A/2015/003384 House and Flats
439 CIC/VS/A/2015/003329 House and Flats
440 CIC/CC/A/2015/001499 House and Flats
441 CIC/VS/A/2015/003183 House and Flats
442 CIC/VS/A/2015/003334 House and Flats
443 CIC/VS/A/2015/003358 House and Flats
444 CIC/VS/A/2015/003332 House and Flats
445 CIC/VS/A/2015/003356 House and Flats
446 CIC/VS/A/2015/003382 House and Flats
447 CIC/VS/A/2015/003205 House and Flats
448 CIC/VS/A/2015/003204 House and Flats
449 CIC/VS/A/2015/003203 House and Flats
450 CIC/VS/A/2015/003363 House and Flats
451 CIC/VS/A/2015/003365 House and Flats
16-01-2017 452 CIC/CC/A/2016/000841 Officer Mess Hq South Western,
Command,IAF, Sector-9,
Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009
453 CIC/CC/A/2016/000836 Officer Mess
454 CIC/CC/A/2016/000835 Officer Mess
455 CIC/CC/A/2016/000839 Officer Mess
456 CIC/CC/A/2016/000840 Officer Mess
457 CIC/CC/A/2016/000837 Officer Mess
458 CIC/CC/A/2016/000643 Officer Mess HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
459 CIC/CC/A/2015/000184 Officer Mess
460 CIC/CC/A/2015/000183 Officer Mess
461 CIC/RK/A/2016/000030 Officer Mess
462 CIC/RK/A/2016/000023 Officer Mess
463 CIC/CC/A/2016/000723 Officer Mess HQ, Training Command,
Indian Air Force, JC
POST,BENGALURU-
560006
464 CIC/CC/A/2016/000725 Officer Mess
465 CIC/CC/A/2016/000721 Officer Mess
466 CIC/CC/A/2016/000719 Officer Mess
467 CIC/RK/A/2016/000109 Officer Mess
468 CIC/RK/A/2016/000306 Officer Mess Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad
469 CIC/RK/A/2016/000311 Officer Mess
470 CIC/RK/A/2016/000310 Officer Mess
471 CIC/RK/A/2016/000309 Officer Mess
472 CIC/RK/A/2016/000305 Officer Mess
473 CIC/RK/A/2016/000301 Officer Mess
474 CIC/CC/A/2016/000355 Officer Mess HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum
475 CIC/CC/A/2016/000354 Officer Mess
476 CIC/CC/A/2016/000353 Officer Mess
477 CIC/CC/A/2016/000352 Officer Mess
18-01-2017 478 CIC/VS/A/2015/002807 Annual commander HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Conference Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
479 CIC/VS/A/2015/002895 Annual commander
11
Conference
480 CIC/VS/A/2015/002813 Annual commander
Conference
481 CIC/VS/A/2015/002771 Annual commander
Conference
482 CIC/VS/A/2015/002707 Annual commander
Conference
483 CIC/VS/A/2015/002822 Annual commander
Conference
484 CIC/VS/A/2015/002804 Annual commander
Conference
485 CIC/VS/A/2015/002798 Annual commander
Conference
486 CIC/VS/A/2015/002796 Annual commander
Conference
487 CIC/VS/A/2015/002795 Annual commander
Conference
488 CIC/VS/A/2015/002841 Annual commander
Conference
489 CIC/VS/A/2015/002840 Annual commander
Conference
490 CIC/VS/A/2015/002786 Annual commander
Conference
491 CIC/VS/A/2015/002982 Annual commander Hq South Western,
Conference Command,IAF, Sector-9,
Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009
492 CIC/VS/A/2015/002784 Annual commander
Conference
493 CIC/VS/A/2015/002890 Annual commander
Conference
494 CIC/VS/A/2015/002891 Annual commander
Conference
495 CIC/VS/A/2015/002998 Annual commander
Conference
496 CIC/VS/A/2015/002984 Annual commander
Conference
497 CIC/VS/A/2015/002769 Annual commander
Conference
498 CIC/VS/A/2015/002888 Annual commander
Conference
499 CIC/VS/A/2015/002997 Annual commander
Conference
500 CIC/VS/A/2015/002885 Annual commander
Conference
501 CIC/VS/A/2015/002886 Annual commander
Conference
502 CIC/VS/A/2015/002781 Annual commander
Conference
503 CIC/VS/A/2015/002821 Annual commander Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad
Conference
504 CIC/VS/A/2015/002489 Annual commander
Conference
505 CIC/VS/A/2015/002774 Annual commander
Conference
506 CIC/VS/A/2015/002837 Annual commander
Conference
507 CIC/VS/A/2015/002848 Annual commander
Conference
12
508 CIC/VS/A/2015/002843 Annual commander
Conference
509 CIC/VS/A/2015/002213 Annual commander Hq,Eastern Air
Conference Command,IAF, Nonglyer
Post, Uppar Shillong,
Meghalaya- 793009
510 CIC/VS/A/2015/002265 Annual commander
Conference
511 CIC/VS/A/2015/002799 Annual commander
Conference
512 CIC/VS/A/2015/002536 Annual commander HQ,WAC, Subroto park ,New
Conference Delhi-110010
513 CIC/VS/A/2015/002563 Annual commander
Conference
514 CIC/VS/A/2015/002567 Annual commander
Conference
515 CIC/VS/A/2015/002578 Annual commander
Conference
516 CIC/VS/A/2015/002586 Annual commander
Conference
19-01-2017 517 CIC/RK/A/2016/000043 PSIs Hq South Western,
Command,IAF, Sector-9,
Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009
518 CIC/RK/A/2016/000042 PSIs
519 CIC/RK/A/2016/000040 PSIs
520 CIC/CC/A/2016/000793 PSIs Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad
521 CIC/CC/A/2016/000789 PSIs
522 CIC/CC/A/2016/000934 PSIs
523 CIC/CC/A/2016/000932 PSIs
524 CIC/CC/A/2016/000973 PSIs HQ, Training Command,
Indian Air Force, JC
POST,BENGALURU-
560006
525 CIC/CC/A/2016/000975 PSIs
526 CIC/CC/A/2016/000745 PSIs
527 CIC/CC/A/2016/000974 PSIs
528 CIC/CC/A/2016/000727 PSIs HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
529 CIC/CC/A/2016/000684 PSIs
530 CIC/CC/A/2016/000998 PSIs
531 CIC/CC/A/2016/000997 PSIs
532 CIC/RK/A/2016/000001 PSIs
533 CIC/CC/A/2016/000347 PSIs HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum
534 CIC/CC/A/2016/000346 PSIs
535 CIC/CC/A/2016/000344 PSIs
536 CIC/CC/A/2016/000343 PSIs
537 CIC/CC/A/2016/000342 PSIs
23-01-2017 538 CIC/VS/A/2015/002809 SPSO Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad
539 CIC/VS/A/2015/002808 PMO Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad
540 CIC/VS/A/2015/002700 PMO
541 CIC/VS/A/2015/002825 AIR HQ Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad
542 CIC/VS/A/2015/002779 AIR HQ
543 CIC/VS/A/2015/002987 CLMO Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad
544 CIC/VS/A/2015/002789 CJAG Hq CAC, IAF, Allahabad
545 CIC/VS/A/2015/003008 SOA Hq South Western,
Command,IAF, Sector-9,
Gandhinagar, Gujrat- 382009
13
546 CIC/VS/A/2015/002850 SAASO HQ, MC, IAF, Vayusena
Nagar, NAGPUR- 440007
547 CIC/CC/A/2016/000229 CADM HQ SAC, IAF,Trivandrum
548 CIC/CC/A/2016/000228 CADM
549 CIC/CC/A/2016/000237 CADM
550 CIC/CC/A/2016/000239 CADM
1. The facts which are necessary to be stated for deciding these second appeal cases are that the appellant had filed applications under the RTI Act, seeking similar kind of information from the public authority, Air Force. The above second appeal cases hearing under the RTI Act was fixed different zone wise of the Indian Air Force relating to a number of subject matters, SNCO Mess, Tree, Computer, SASO, CADMO, CSD URC, SMSO, AOC & CO, CPIO/PIO, DSC Messes, Income Expenditure of NPFs, Animal, AFWWA, Houses and flats, Officers mess, Annual Commander Conference, PSI, APSO, PMO, SOA, AIR Hq, CLMO, SAASO and CADM and so on.
2. The Commission conducted hearing of the above second appeal cases on 13 different dates in the month of Dec 2016 and Jan 2017 segregating it subject matter wise.
3. It is relevant to mention here that the appellant remained present on the first day of hearing only, on the remaining days he remained absent despite duly served notice and facility of video conferencing scheduled in his hometown, Chandigarh.
4. On 30th Dec 2016, i.e. during the first day of hearing, the appellant submitted at the outset, that earlier bench of the Commission vide its order dated 19.11.2015 had disposed of related second appeal cases in which partial information were directed to be disclosed to him by the Commission. He further added that the order was not complied with by the respondent.
5. Per contra, the respondent submitted that on the same subject matters, the Air Force were in the process of filing a writ petition challenging the above order of the Commission before Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
6. The Commission found it appropriate to examine the orders dated 19.11.2015 of the Commission, in order to evaluate the submission of both the parties before the Commission in the present case.
7. The operative part of the decision dated 19.11.2015 of the Commission reads as follows:
"2. The appellant, in the course of the hearing, said that he had filed various RTI applications before the Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) of the Air Headquarters and Commands of the IAF. The appellant stated that he retired from the IAF in May 2013 and started filing RTI applications from October in the same year. The information sought in the RTI requests covered, inter alia, complaints regarding 14 misconduct, appellant's victimisation, financial misappropriation and administrative irregularities, as well as operational issues of the IAF.
3. A number of appeals were heard on 15.07.2015 and on subsequent dates till 05.08.2015. On 15.07.2015, when the hearing commenced, the number of appeals filed by the appellant, as registered with the registry of this Commission, was 3588. The appellant indicated during the hearings that he is still filing RTI applications and will continue to file them.
Decision
37. The respondents are directed to provide to the appellant the available information relating to:
(a) matters pertinent to the appellant's tenure and work in the IAF taking into account also his Redressal of Grievance applications;
(b) the action taken on the RTI applications relating to the appellant's medical treatment;
(c) the status of any enquiry conducted on the basis of the appellant's representations alleging corruption and irregularities; and information about any findings pertinent to the appellant;
(d) the appellant's representation regarding an incident involving another officer of the IAF as mentioned in the Redressal of Grievance application dated 02052011,in which context, the appellant must be enabled to inspect the respondent's file relating to the inquiry conducted in the matter;
(e) the policy and norms regarding the functioning of the messes and the accounts including audit reports in such entities where the appellant was a member;
(f) the policy and norms regarding any additional furnishing of aircrafts in context of the RTI applications under consideration and any audit reports;
(g) the flora and fauna destroyed or damaged in context of the RTI applications under consideration; and
(h) the names of the CPIOs appointed since the appellant started filing RTI applications in the IAF.
38. A copy of this order be placed before the Chief Information Commissioner for examining subparas (ix) and (xi) of para 36 above, with the objective of putting in place a system for handling RTI applications that appear to be vexatious in nature and scope."
8. The appellant on the other hand submitted contradictory statements and said that the present RTI applications are different. The CPIO's were unable to provide the dates of the RTI applications which were already disposed of vide the Commission's order dated 19.11.2015 in File No CIC/CC/A/2014/001053 etc.
9. The Commission accordingly had no other option, but to accept the appellant's plea, that the fresh matters which were pending before the Commission for second appeals were supplemental in nature.
10.On perusal of the order dated 19.11.2015, the Commission found that the comprehensive order passed by the Commission did not indicate dates of filing of the various RTI applications. As there was no other mechanism to 15 check up the status of the past cases, the Commission heard the present appeals pending before it de novo.
11.Coming to the point of nature of information sought by the appellant, the Commission perused the various RTI applications of the appellant pertaining to different subject matters, filed before different Air Force stations throughout the Country. Similar information was sought from each command of the Air Force, same question of law relating to Sec 7(9) applicability arises in all these appeals and for the sake of convenience, the Commission will take note of the facts of RTI application of each date, subject matter wise.
12. Coming to the point of nature of information sought by the appellant, the Commission perused the various RTI applications of the appellant pertaining to different subject matters, filed before different Air Force stations throughout the Country. Similar information was sought from each Command of the Air Force, same question of law relating to Sec 7(9) applicability arises in all these appeals and for the sake of convenience, the Commission will take note of the facts of RTI of each date subject matter wise.
Date of hearing : 30th Dec 2016 Appellant : Present
Respondent : 1. Sqn Ldr S S Elamurugu (Hq WAC)
2. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra (Hq MC)
3. Captain Vivek Kumar Dixit (Hq CAC)
4. Group Captain Prashant Choubey (Hq SAC) Senior Non Commissioned Officers Mess (hereinafter mentioned as SNCO Mess.
13.The appellant had sought information vide his RTI application dated 29.08.2014, 23.06.2015, 29.06.2015, and 07.09.2014 (18 cases) The information sought by the appellant are enumerated below date-wise:
(i) RTI dated 23.06.2015:
" a. SNCOs Mess of HQ CAC(U) is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much 16 is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of SNCOs Mess from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including chairman, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food Member, Property Member, Sports Member, Entertainment Member, Library Member & Accommodation Member for the last three years, whether IAF officers/ air warriors or private/ civilians? d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the SNCO's mess exist? Income & expenditure of SNCOs Mess from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
RTI dated 29.06.2015 "a. SNCOs Mess of Air Force Station, Gwalior is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of SNCOs Mess from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
17c. Who are the members of managing committee including chairman, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food Member, Property Member, Sports Member, Entertainment Member, Library Member & Accommodation Member for the last three years, whether IAF officers/ air warriors or private/ civilians? d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the SNCO's mess exist? Income & expenditure of SNCOs Mess from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
RTI dated 29.08.2014 "a. SNCOs Mess of Air Force Station, Barwala is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of SNCOs Mess from public/non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including chairman, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food Member, Property Member, Sports Member, Entertainment Member, Library Member & Accommodation Member for the last three years, whether IAF officers/ air warriors or private/ civilians? d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?
18e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the SNCO's mess exist?
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
RTI dated 07.09.2014 "a. SNCOs Mess of Air Force Station, Jaipur is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of SNCOs Mess from public/non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 July 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including chairman, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food Member, Property Member, Sports Member, Entertainment Member, Library Member & Accommodation Member for the last three years, whether IAF officers/ air warriors or private/ civilians? d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the SNCO's mess exist? Income & expenditure of SNCOs Mess from 01/01/2008 to 31/12/2009 with file notings & policies. f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
14.On perusal of the above queries, and on thorough examination of the files at hand, it was seen that the RTI dated 23.06.2015 was filed before, the CPIO Head Quarter, Central Air Command, Allahabad which is hereinafter termed as (Hq CAC). There is no reply on record by the CPIO, Hq, CAC, Allahabad.
1915. On query by the Commission for the reason of not furnishing any reply to the appellant, the present CPIO Hq CAC, Group Captain, V.K Dixit submitted that in Indian Air Publication regulation for the Air Force, rules relating to NPF, SNCOs Mess is available. He further submitted that in Para 15 of IAF, management of SNCO, Para 1546 to 1576 of Air Force Regulation, 1964 detail relating to SNCO is available. He also submitted that initially they made efforts to furnish information, but now it became unmanageable, because of sheer bulk of information sought. Hence, no reply was furnished to the appellant.
16. The same RTI application was filed before, the CPIO Head Quarter, Training Command, Indian Air Force, Bengaluru which is hereinafter termed as (Hq, TC). The CPIO, Hq TC, Bengaluru,Wing Commander A P Satheesh Kumar, replied vide his letter dated 31.07.2015 as follows:
"1. Refer your application (total Ninety Five) all dated 23 Jun 15 addressed to CPIO HQ Training Command IAF, received at this HQ on 1 Jul 15. You have sought the following information :-
"(a) Officer's Mess -:
(i)" Officers' Mess office of HQ TC, AFA, AFAC, AFTC, ASTE,CHAF (B), IAM, SDI, AFS Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakét, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka is built on which land? Whether it is private land or Govt/IAF/AF land? How much is the area of his land? It this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
(ii) How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of these offices/store/ventures from public/ non public funds from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14 along with polices and file notings.
Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds where govt officers or private?
(iii) Who are the members of managing committee including Chairman, PMC, Mess Secretary, treasurer, Bar Member, Food Member, Property Member, Sports Member, Entertainment Member, Library Member and Accommodation Member for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
(iv) How many combatants/civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here getting any honorarium and civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?
20(v) If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Offrs'Mess exist?
Income and expenditure of Officers' mess from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings and policies.
(b) SNCO's Mess
(i) " SNCOs' Mess office of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC, ASTE,CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF, Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram. Yelahanka and AF Hospital Coimbatore is built on which land? Whether it is private land and Govt/IAF/AF land? How much is the area of this land? It this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
(ii)How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of these offices/store/ventures from public/ non public funds from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14 along with polices and file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds where govt officers or private?
(iii)Who are the members of managing committee including Chairman, treasurer, Bar Member, Food Member, Property Member, Sports Member, Entertainment Member, Library Member and Accommodation Member for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
(iv) How many combatants/civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here getting any honorarium and civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?
(v) If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the SNCO's Mess exist?
(vi)Any other relevant information.
(vii) File notings of progress of this RTI."
(c) AOC/CO Contigency Fund:-
(i)"AOC/CO Contigency Fund office HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC, ASTE,CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF, Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram. Yelahanka and AFH Coimbatore is built on which land? Whether it is private land and Govt/IAF/AF land? How much is the area of this land? It this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
(ii)How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of these offices/store/ventures from public/ non public funds from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14 along with polices and file notings.
21Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds where govt officers or private?
(iii)Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO. C Adm O, Officer-in Charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors of private/ civilians? Do they their salary from govt or from this non public fund?
(iv)How many combatants/civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here getting any honorarium and civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? Do they get their salary from govt or from this non public fund?
(v)If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AOC/CO Contingency Fund exist? Income and expenditure of AOC/CO Contingency Fund from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings and policies.
(vi)Any other relevant information.
(vii)File notings of progress of this RTI."
(d) PSI Office & Its Ventures :-
(i)"PSI office and its ventures of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC, ASTE,CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF, Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram. Yelahanka and AFH Coimbatore are built on which land? Whether it is private land and Govt/IAF/AF land? How much is the area of this land? It this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
(ii)How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of PSI Office and its ventures from public/ non public funds from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 14 along with polices and file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds whether govt officers or private?
(iii)Who are the members of managing committee including Chairman, Officer-in Charge, C Adm O for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors of private/ civilians?
(iv)How many combatants/civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here getting any honorarium and civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?
22(v)If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the PSI exist? Income and expenditure of PSI from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings and policies.
(vi)Any other relevant information.
(vii)File notings of progress of this RTI."
(e) CSD URC :-
(i)"CSD URC of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC, ASTE,CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF, Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram. Yelahanka and AFH Coimbatore is built on which land? Whether it is private land and Govt/IAF/AF land? How much is the area of this land? It this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
(ii)How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of CSD URC from public/ non public funds from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jan 15 along with polices and file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds whether govt officers or private?
(iii)Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer-in Charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors of private/ civilians?
(iv)How many combatants/civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here getting any honorarium and civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?
(v)If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the CSD Canteen exist? Income and expenditure of CSD URC from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings and policies.
(vi)Any other relevant information.
(vii)File notings of progress of this RTI."
(f)AFWWA(L) Office and Its Ventures :-
(a)"(i) " AFWWA(L) office and its ventures of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC, ASTE,CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF, Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram. Yelahanka and AFH Coimbatore are built on which land? Whether it is private land and Govt/IAF/AF land? How much is the area of this land? It this is govt 23 land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?Who pays the water and electricity bills?
(ii)How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of these offices/store/ventures from public/ non public funds from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14 along with polices and file notings.
Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds whether govt officers or private?
(iii)Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer-in Charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/ civilians? Do they get salary from govt or from this non public fund?
(iv)How many combatants/civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here getting any honorarium and civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? Do they get their salary from govt or from this non public fund?
(v)If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AFWWA(Local) exist? Income and expenditure of AFWAA(L) from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings and policies.
(vi)Any other relevant information
(vii)File notings of progress of this RTI."
2. On perusal of your applications, RTI Act, 2005 and past decisions of Hon'ble CIC the following is revealed :-
(a) The term "Public Authority" as defined in Section 2(h) of RTI Acts, 2005 means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted :-
(i) by or under the Constitution; (ii) by any other law made by Parliament;
(iii) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(iv) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government and includes any-
(aa) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ab) non-Government organization substantially financed.
Directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
24(b) The following past decisions of Hon'ble CIC are related to nature of information sought by you vide ibid applications :-
(i) File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/000077 : " I wish to make it very clear that RTI Act implies only to public funds. It does not apply to the Regimental funds. It appears to me that the appellant has sought... information most of which related to Regimental Funds which do not fall in the ambit of RTI Act. The appellant's request for information has to be considered in the framework of this legal principle.... " of Public Authority as defined under Section 2(h) (d) (ii) of the Act."
(ii) Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01155-SM:- "... from the records made available to us both by the Appellant and the Respondent, we find that it cannot be termed as a Public Authority for the purpose of Section 2(h)
(d) (ii) of the RTI Act and therefore, the RTI Act will not apply to the AWWA." In the same line 'Air Force Wives Welfare Association (AFWWA)' is also a Registered Society under the Society Registration Act, 1860 with effect from 28 Oct, 1970. Hence your above application is hereby rejected since the AFWWA does not fall within the ambit of Public Authority as defined under Section 29 (h) (d) (ii) of the Act." (C) You have sought various information in bulk with respect to HQ TC IAF and Stn/Units under TC IAF in the past also. It seems that by seeking frivolous and repetitive information in bulk, you want to put undue unwanted pressure to harass the organization in which you have served. While considering the appeal in the case of Smt Uma Kanti and Shri Ramesh Chandra vs Navodaya Vidyalaya (No. CIC/OK/C/2007/00362 and 367 dated 05 Jan 08), Hon'ble CIC had directed "the respondents not to consider the RTI application filed by the applicant and his wife since the RTI cannot be turned into a tool for vendetta of an employee against his organization for some grievances that one harbours against it. A copy of the said citation is annexed herewith. In another case of Shri SK Lal vs Ministry of Railways (Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00268-272 dated 29 Dec 06), wherein the Hon'ble CIC has observed that "though the RTI Act allows citizen to seek any information other than the 10 categories exempted under section 8, it does not mean that the public authorities are required to entertain to all sort of frivolous applications."
3. The reply of above said information sought by you vide your ibid applications (total Ninety Five) all dated 23 Jun 15 is given below:-
(a) Officers' Mess :-
(i) It is intimated that no Officers' Mess exists as SDI.
(ii) Officers'Mess of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC, ASTE,CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF, Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka is the groups of individuals of equal social status and run by the contributions of its members. These 25 messes are not in receipt of any financial assistance from the Govt and no Public Fund is involved. Hence, the mess does not come under the ambit of term "Public Authority."
(d) SNCOs' Mess:-
(i) it is intimated that no SNCO's Mess exists at SDI and AF Hospital Coimbatore.
(ii) SNCOs'Mess of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC, ASTE,CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF, Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka is the groups of individuals of equal social status and run by the contributions of its members. These messes are not in receipt of any financial assistance from the Govt and no Public Fund is involved. Hence, the mess does not come under the ambit of term "Public Authority."
(e) AOC/CO Contingency Fund:- (i) AOC/CO Contingency Fund of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC,
ASTE,CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF, Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka and AF Hospital Coimbatore is a Regimental Fund to cater the emergency requirement of Stn/unit personnel. The Contingency Fund is not in receipt of any financial assistance from the Govt and no Public Fund is involved. Hence, does not come under the term "Public Authority."
(f) PSI Office and Its Ventures:-
(i) It is intimated that no PSI Office and Its Ventures exists at AF Hospital Coimbatore.
(ii) PSI Office and Its Ventures of HQ TC, AFA, AFAC,AFTC, ASTE, CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka are Regimental ventures which run on the contributions by its members for welfare of Stn/unit personnel. The ventures are not in receipt of any financial assistance from the Govt and no Public Fund is involved. Hence, PSI office and its ventures do not come under the term "Public Authority."
(g) CSD URC:-
(i) It is intimated that no CSD URC exists at HQ TC, AFA, AFAC,AFTC, ASTE, CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka. However, these stns/units are having Unit Run Canteen (URC).
(ii) It is intimated that no URC exists at AF Hospital Coimbatore 26
(iii) URC of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC,AFTC, ASTE, CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka is a Regimental venture which not in receipt of any financial assistance from the Govt and no Public Fund is involved. Hence, the URC does not come under the ambit of term "Public Authority."
(h) AFWWA Office and Its Ventures:-
(i) It is intimated that no AFWWA Office and its ventures exists at AF Hospital Coimbatore
(ii) Air Force Wives Welfare Association (AFWWA) is a Registered Society under the society Registration Act, 1860 with effect from 28 Oct, 1970. Ventures of AFWWA (L) of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC,AFTC, ASTE, CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka are Regimental ventures and are not in receipt of any financial assistance from the Govt and no Public Fund is involved. Hence, AFWWA (L) office and its ventures do not come under the ambit of term "Public Authority."
4. In view of the para 2 and 3 above, it is intimated that the information sought by vide your ibid RTI applications (total Ninety Five) all dated 23 Jun 15 cannot be provided to you, since the institutions are not 'Public Authority' under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. File noting of progress of these RTI applications [n-1 on file TC/9619/1/335/P1(PC)] is annexed herewith. "
17. The same RTI application was filed before the CPIO, Head Quarter, Maintenance Command, Nagpur which is hereinafter termed as (Hq, MC). The CPIO, MC, Nagpur,Squadron Leader Vishal Chopra, replied vide his letter dated 28.07.2015 as follows:
"Refer your following RTI applications (Total 72) as per details shown against the applications (category wise), seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Sl. No. Details of RTI applications Date of Date of Application Application of receipt at HQMC
(a) Information pertaining to AOC/CO 23 Jun 15 30 Jun 15 Contingency Fund Office details about land and its employee and Income and expenditure from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file noting and polices of the following units: - AFS Kanpur, 1 BRD, 3 BRD, 4 BRD, 5BRD, 7BRD,8 27 BRD,9 BRD, 11 BRD ,13 BRD, 14BRD, 15BRD, 16 BRD, 23ED, 24ED,25 ED,26 ED, 27ED,29 ED,31 MCU, 33 MCU, 54 ASP, HQ MC (U), & 7 Air Force Hospital, Kanpur (total 24 applications)
(b) Information pertaining to SNCO Mess 23 Jun 15 30 Jun 15 details about land and its employee and Income and expenditure from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file noting and polices of the following units: - AFS Kanpur, 1 BRD, 3 BRD, 4 BRD, 5 BRD, 7BRD,8 BRD,9 BRD, 11 BRD ,13 BRD, 14BRD, 15BRD, 16 BRD, 23 ED, 24 ED,25 ED,26 ED, 27 ED,29 ED,31 MCU, 33 MCU, 54 ASP, HQ MC (U), & 7 Air Force Hospital, Kanpur (total 24 applications)
(c) Information pertaining to PSI Office 23 Jun 15 30 Jun15 details about land and its employee and Income and expenditure from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file noting and polices of the following units: - AFS Kanpur, 1 BRD, 3 BRD, 4 BRD, 5BRD, 7BRD,8 BRD,9 BRD, 11 BRD ,13 BRD, 14 BRD, 15BRD, 16 BRD, 23 ED, 24 ED,25 ED,26 ED, 27ED,29 ED,31 MCU, 33 MCU, 54 ASP, HQ MC (U), & 7 Air Force Hospital, Kanpur (total 24 applications)
1. On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organization as stipulated by section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
18. During the hearing, the CPIO Nagpur submitted that the appellant is in the habit of filing large number of RTI applications on the same subject, he further submitted that appellant's application was paralysing the organisation, it was virtually impossible for them to reply to each and every RTI application.
19. The same RTI application was filed before the CPIO, Head Quarter, Western Air Command, New Delhi which is hereinafter termed as (Hq, WAC). The CPIO, WAC, New Delhi, Squadron Leader U. N Pathak , replied vide his letter dated 29.07.2015 as follows:
" 1. Refer your 114 applications all dated 23.06.2015 under the RTI Act, 2005, addressed to the CPIO, HQ WAC, IAF which was received at this HQ on 29.06.2015.28
2. On perusal of your above mentioned applications it is ascertained that the information sought by you is in the nature of numerous details, which is not readily available and compilation of information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation. Hence, the same is denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
20. During the hearing CPIO Delhi reiterated its earlier reply and also contended that income-expenditure account details of SNCO were not held by them.
21. The CPIO Thiruvananthapuram submitted that the information sought was pertaining to SNCO Mess. SNCO is relating to NPF. Hence, the sought for information is not required to be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005. He also submitted that as it was not compulsory for them to reply, CPIO decided not to part with the sought for information. He also submitted that it would amount to duplicacy of work, CPIO cited order of the FAA, AIR Chief Marshal, TPS Dhillon. The operative Para 5 of the decision is as follows:
"5. AND WHEREAS, on perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that partial information as available with the CPIO was provided to you under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005 vide SAC/7031/1/P1(XV) dated 27 Jul 15. Further the information sought by you cannot be provided under the spirit of the RTI Act as collating such a large data would strain the public authority to such an extent that it would almost paralyze its functioning. Such a large data cannot be furnished to the applicant without deploying enormous manpower only for this purpose, thus diverting the resources of the public authority. The same is exempted u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act."
In the light of the volume and nature of the appellant's RTI application,the Commission observes that the FAA order was just and proper.
22. The RTI dated 29.08.2014 was filed before the CPIO, Head Quarter, Western Air Command, New Delhi which is hereinafter termed as (Hq, WAC). There is no reply on record by the CPIO, Hq, WAC, Delhi. During the hearing the CPIO New Delhi replied that no such RTI application was received by them. The appellant had not given any substantial evidence to prove receipt of the RTI application. It appears that seeing the nature of RTI applications he himself was unable to co-relate the same.
23. The RTI application dated 07.09.2014 was filed before the CPIO, HQ South Western Air Command, Gandhinagar, which is hereinafter mentioned as 29 (HQ, SWAC), in regard to which Group Captain, V.K. Dixit, the then CPIO, vide its letter dated 27.10.2014 had replied as follows:
" 1. Reference is made to you r following 188 applications and 57 appeals submitted under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information about AOC/CO residence, AOC/CO Contingency Fund office, Officers' Mess, SNCOs' Mess, CSD, PSI Office and its ventures, AFWWA (L) and its ventures and Airmen and DSC Mess pertaining to various Air Force stations Under SWAC:-
(a) 144 applications dated 06,07, 08, 12 and 13 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 18 Sep 14.
(b) 48 applications dated 16 and 17 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 29 Sep 14.
(c) 30 appeals dated 06 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 16 Sep 14.
(d) 27 applications dated 13 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 25 Sep 14.
2. Perusal of the above motioned applications and appeals reveal that the information sought by you is in the nature of seeking numerous details mostly pertaining to Non Public Fund which is not a public authority under Sec 2 (h) of RTI Act. Moreover, the information sought is voluminous which is not readily available and compilation of the said information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organization. Further, filing of such huge number of allocations and appeals on matters not strictly within the domain of CPIO, HQ SWAC is curtailing its administrative efficiency and therefore prejudicial to operational efficiency and mission achievement.
3. The matter was duly considered by the final authority at this HQ for supply of information sought by you and he has directed that no action be initiated on any of the applications submitted by you. The decision of the authority also finds support in the decisions of the Hon'ble CIC and a recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dared 17 September 14, which have in similar cases decried the tendency of the applications to file numerous and vexatious applications. Hence, the aforementioned applications and appeals mentioned in Para 2 above are rejected in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. It is further informed that no action would be initiated, in future on any such applications preferred in bulk. However, the information which would be readily available and not exempted under Sec 8 of RTI Act would be furnished. "
24. During the hearing the appellant submitted that the information sought by him should be disclosed in larger public interest. He stressed on declaring SNCO Mess as public authority under Sec 2(h) of the RTI Act. He submitted that NPF originated from IAF and IAF from AF regulation and AF regulation came from AF Act. He then submitted that basically NPF originated from an Act, passed by parliament. Hence it is a public authority.30
25. He also submitted a file containing the decision relied upon by him. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia vs Khalid Mujib, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar vs Hony Joint Secretary, AFWWA & Anr in WP(C) No-2710/1996, Commission decision in S.S Dahiya vs CPIO MoD, Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs Supreme Court of India, Lt Col R Bansal vs AWHO, B R Manhas vs JNMF, Ketan Kantilal Modi vs CBEC. Basically he was stressing on the instrumentality of state. However, the Commission finds the above reliance unsustainable. The appellant was unable to give a cogent reason for filing repeated RTI application for the same nature of queries.
26. It is relevant to note here that merely quoting case laws is not sufficient to make a valid case. The appellant had cited some decisions generally but had not highlighted the operative part of the same nor had he linked it with his own case. Hence, it is not necessary to restate what had been referred to earlier.
Date of hearing : 02.01.2017 Appellant : Absent Respondent : 1. Sqn Vishal Chopra
2. Captain Prashant Choubey
3. Group Captain V.K Dixit Chief Administrative Officer CADMO
27. The appellant remained absent despite duly served notice.
28. The eight second appeals involve the same RTI application relating to CADMO. Hence, these were clubbed and heard together. The appellant had sought various information relating to CADMOs e.g whether CADMO AF stations, are built on private or Government land, money involved, maintenance cost, 01.01.1996 to 31.02.2014, authorities who approve cost, whether CADMO is a public authority, Form 16 issued by whom and other related information.
29. The CPIO Allahabad, Group Captain V.K Dixit, submitted that they had earlier replied to all the RTI applications submitted by the appellant. However later on they stopped replying as per policy of Air HQ. The policy has been discussed in the succeeding paragraph of this order.31
30. On query by the Commission on the legality of such Policy Circular, the CPIO submitted that the AOC in C is empowered to take any decision in respect of policy matters in the area of his jurisdiction. The Commission found it appropriate to peruse the circular referred to during the hearing.
31. The CPIO had submitted a copy of the AOC in C's powers and functions, which reads as follows:
"827. Institution/ Defence of civil suits
a) No legal proceedings shall be undertaken on behalf of the Government without the sanction of the air officer commanding-in-chief Command/ Air Officer in charge Administration, Air Headquarters, for units under their control, who may, on the advice of the proper Government law officer, sanction the institution or defence of civil suits or appeals. The conduct of the case will rest with the Government law officer, if available; the payment of his fees and other expenses in connection with the counsel and of witnesses being sanctioned by the air officer commanding-in chief Command/ Air Officer-in-
charge Administration, Air Headquarters, for units under their control, who may fix the fees in consultation with the Government law officer, subject to such restrictions regarding the maximum amounts payable to counsel as are laid down by the Central Governement from time to time. Claims for expenses in connection with counsel and witnesses will be accompanied by a certificate from the legal remembrance that they are reasonable. No suit by or against the Central Government, in respect of contracts relating to lands shall be filed or defended without the prior sanction of the Central Government.
b) A list of Government law officers who may be consulted is given in para 828. The procedure with regard to consulting these officers is governed by the rules on the subject framed by the State Government in whose jurisdiction the area of the command concerned is included. In the case of the area of the command which is situated within the jurisdiction of more than one state, the law officer of the State in which the case originated should be consulted (see also para
828).
c) When an officer receives intimation that a civil suit has been, or is likely to be instituted against the Government or a public servant in his official capacity, 32
d) he will report the circumstances to the air officer commanding-in-chief Command/ Air officer-in-charge Administration, Air Headquarters, for units under their control, in order to avoid ex parte decree being made against Government. In this connection it should be remembered that the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 80, requires two month's notice of such a suit to be given before a valid suit can be instituted.
e) To enable the air officer commanding-in-chief command/ Air officer-in-charge Administration, Air Headquarters, for units under their control, to decide on the advisability of instituting legal proceedings, the officer immediately concerned will prepare a memorandum explaining the necessity for the suit and including a statement of the claim showing the subject of the claim, its amount, when it accrued, steps taken to obtain satisfaction, pleas urged by the defence and answers to such pleas. Copies of all important documents (with translations, where necessary) will accompany the memorandum.
f) If it is desired to institute a civil suit for the recovery of monies due to Government, the officer immediately concerned will ascertain from the civil officer of the district in which the defendant lives whether the sum could be paid by the latter. If the civil officer reports that the defendant is in a position to satisfy a decree for the amount claimed, an application for the sanction will be made to the air officer commanding-in-chief commanding/ Air Officer in charge Administration, Air Headquarters, for units under their control.
g) When sanction is accorded to the defence or prosecution of a civil suit in which a public servant in his official capacity is implicated, the fee of one counsel will be allowed.
h) Rules regarding the procedure in connection with suits by or against airmen are contained in the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order V, Rules 28 and 29 and Order XXVIII, Rules 1 to 3.
32.From a perusal of the above rule, it transpires that, by no stretch of imagination, it can be made out that the AOC in C is empowered to deny information under the RTI Act. By not replying to the RTI application submitted by the appellant under the RTI Act, the CPIO had committed violation of the relevant provisions of the RTI enactment.
3333.The file notings of AOC in C was also submitted in which the concerned AOC in C approved that as per the nature of the RTI application, the RTI applications may be rejected u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act.
34.From the file notings it is clear that the AOC in C decided that the RTI request of the appellant would be denied under Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act, the then CPIO had however himself misinterpreted the AOC in C's decision to deny furnishing of reply to any of the RTI applications of the particular appellant.
35.During the hearing also the CPIO was unable to give any justifiable explanation for not replying to the RTI applications dated 04.04.2015, the FAA also had not disposed of the first appeal dated 05.05.2015. The above action is quite deplorable. The CPIO and the FAA were duty bound to provide information u/s 6 of the RTI Act.
SASO
36.The appellant had sought various information relating to SASOs from CPIO Allahabad, e.g whether SASO HQ CAC residence is built on private or Government land, money involved, maintenance cost,w.e.f 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014, authorities who approve cost, whether SASO is a public authority, Form 16 issued by whom, Name of the SASO and other related information.
37.The CPIO Allahabad, reiterated the same stand as taken by the AOC in C. COMPUTERS
38.The appellant had sought information in regard to the number of officers who had purchased computers/ laptops, cars/two wheelers, flats beyond the limit as prescribed in AFO 20/2000 from 01 Jan 1996 to 31 Dec 2014, loans if any, taken by the concerned officers, details of recommending authority and action taken against the officers who had failed to provide such information to their superior officers or failed to obtain approvals for such action.
39.During the hearing the CPIO, Trivandrum, Group Captain Prashant Choubey submitted that the documents sought relate to a period of 18 years and the volume is enormous. It was not possible for them to provide such 34 voluminous information. On perusal of the reply dated 27.07.2015, the Commission considered the reply irrelevant, and not connected with the present subject matter. The CPIO also relied on the FAA's order. The relevant Para 5 of the FAA , Air Vice Marshal T P S Dhillon's order reads as follows:
"5. AND WHEREAS, on perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that partial information as available with the CPIO was provided to you under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005 vide SAC/7031/1/P1(XV) dated 27 Jul 15. Further the information sought by you cannot be provided under the spirit of the RTI Act as collating such a large data would strain the public authority to such an extent that it would almost paralyze its functioning. Such a large data cannot be furnished to the applicant without deploying enormous manpower only for this purpose, thus diverting the resources of the public authority. The same is exempted u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act."
TREES
40.The appellant wants census report of the trees from Sep 2014 to June 2015 and other related information.
41.During the hearing the CPIO Trivandrum reiterated its earlier reply dated 06.08.2015.
42.The CPIO's reply dated 06.08.2015 reads as follows:
"1. Refer your RTI applications (Total 56) dated 29th Jun 15 received at this office on 10 Jul 15.
2. On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organisation as stipulated by section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the requisite information cannot be furnished as you have sought information with respect to officers' Mess, SNCOs' Mess, AFWWA(Local) and other Non-Public Fund Ventuirtes which are not substantially financed by Central Government, therefore, NPF management cannot be said to be a 'Public Authority' u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act."35
43.The FAA order dated 16th Sep 2015 also had disposed of the first appeal dated 12.08.2015. The FAA Air Vice Marshal T P S Dhillon's order reads as follows:
"5. AND WHEREAS, on perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that partial information as available with the CPIO was provided to you under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005 vide SAC/7031/1/P1(XV) dated 27 Jul 15. Further the information sought by you cannot be provided under the spirit of the RTI Act as collating such a large data would strain the public authority to such an extent that it would almost paralyze its functioning. Such a large data cannot be furnished to the applicant without deploying enormous manpower only for this purpose, thus diverting the resurces of the public authority. The same is exempted u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act."
44.The appellant wanted to know the number of trees in AF hospital from Jan 1995 to Aug 2014 and other related information.
45.During the hearing the CPIO Nagpur reiterated the Para (h) of the CPIO's reply dated 21.10.2014. The relevant part of the reply reads as under:
"(h) Information pertaining to census of trees of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF (Total 24 applications)"
3. Further, with respect to para 1(b) and (h), it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you without diverting the resources of this organisation. Since, no 'public interest' as such, is being served, the said information is exempted in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
46.The FAA, Air Vice Marshal, Rajiv Bhalwar vide order dated 27.11.2014 had upheld the above reply of the CPIO.
Date of hearing: 03.01.2017
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : 1. Sqn Ldr T. N Swamy
2. Sqn Ldr S S Elamurugu
36
3. Sqn Ldr Bhupali Biswas
4. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
5. Flight Lt. Victor
6. Group Captain V.K Dixit
CSD URC
47. The appellant was absent despite duly served notice.
48.The appellant had sought the following information relating to CSD URC of Air Force Station Delhi (1 File) on 7 points, vide RTI dated 29.06.2015 as follows:
" a. CSD URC of Air Force Station, Arjangarh is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of CSD URC from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?37
e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the CSD URC exist? Income & expenditure of CSD URC from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
49.The CPIO, WAC, New Delhi, Squadron Leader U. N Pathak , replied vide his letter dated 06.08.2015 as follows:
" 1. Refer your 114 applications all dated 29 Jun 2015 under the RTI Act, 2005, addressed to the CPIO, HQ WAC, IAF which was received at this HQ on 06 Jul 15.
2. On perusal of your above mentioned applications it is ascertained that the information sought by you is in the nature of numerous details, which is not readily available and compilation of information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation. Hence, the same is denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
50. The FAA had not disposed of the first appeal.
51. The appellant had sought the following information relating to CSD URC from CPIO Shillong (3 cases) vide RTI dated 04.07.2014:
" a. Income & expenditure of Air Force Station, Guwahati CSD Canteen from 01 Dec 13 to 30 Jun 14, alongwith policies & file notings."
52. The CPIO, EAC, Shillong, Squadron Leader S H Haq , replied vide his letter dated 06.08.2014 as follows:
"2. In response to the information requested in respect of income & expenditure of Air Force Sattion Guwahati CSD Canteen for the period from 01 Dec 13 to 30 Jun 14, it is informed that CSD Canteen are Non-Public Fund and does not come under the 38 purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the requested information cannot be provided."
53. The FAA, Air Vice Marshal, Praveen Bhatt vide order dated 18th October 2014 had upheld the above order.
54. The appellant had sought the following information relating to CSD URC from CPIO Nagpur (6 cases) on 7 points vide RTI dated 10.09.2014:
" a. CSD Canteen of 13 BRD is built on which land ?
Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of CSD canteen from public/non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the CSD URC exist? Income & expenditure of CSD URC from 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2008 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
55. The CPIO, MC, Nagpur, Squadron Leader Devendra Singh, replied vide his letter dated 21.10.2014 as follows:
" It is seen that the information sought by you are related to Non-Public Fund ventures which are not substantially financed by Central 39 Government, therefore, NPF management cannot be said to be a "public authority" u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. The information sought by you are, thus, beyond the purview of the RTI Act, 2005."
56. The FAA, Air Vice Marshal, Rajiv Bhalwar while disposing of the first appeal vide its order dated 27.11.2014, had upheld the reply of the CPIO and relied on a decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002736.
57. The appellant had sought the following information relating to CSD URC of Air Force Station on 7 points vide RTI dated 29.06.2015 as follows " a. CSD Canteen of 13 BRD is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of CSD canteen from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the CSD URC exist? Income & expenditure of CSD URC from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
58. The CPIO, Sqn Ldr, Vishal Chopra had replied vide its letter dated 29th July 2015. The relevant portion is extracted below:
40"2. On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organisation as stipulated by Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
59. The FAA had not diposed of the first appeal dated 05.08.15.
60. The appellant had sought the following information relating to CSD URC of Air Force Station on 7 points vide RTI dated 29.06.2015 as follows:
" a. CSD URC of SDI is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of CSD URC from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the CSD URC exist? Income & expenditure of CSD URC from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."41
61. The CPIO A P Satheesh Kumar vide its reply dated 31.07.2015 had replied as under:
"(g) CSD URC:-
(i) It is intimated that no CSD URC exists at HQ TC, AFA, AFAC,AFTC, ASTE, CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka. However, these stns/units are having Unit Run Canteen (URC).
(ii) It is intimated that no URC exists at AF Hospital Coimbatore
(iii) URC of HQ TC(U), AFA, AFAC,AFTC, ASTE, CHAF(B), IAM, SDI, AF Stn Beugmpet, Belgaum, Bidar, Hakimpet, Jalahalli, Tambaram and Yelahanka is a Regimental venture which not in receipt of any financial assistance from the Govt and no Public Fund is involved. Hence, the URC does not come under the ambit of term "Public Authority."
4. In view of the para 2 and 3 above, it is intimated that the information sought by vide your ibid RTI applications (total Ninety Five) all dated 23 Jun 15 cannot be provided to you, since the institutions are not 'Public Authority' under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. File noting of progress of these RTI applications [n-1 on file TC/9619/1/335/P1(PC)] is annexed herewith."
62. The FAA , Air Vice Marshal, S K Parhi had vide its order dated 16th sep 15 disposed of the first appeal. The relevant portions are extracted below:
"6. AND HOWEVER, the following information is commented on your appeals (total 96) all dated 10 Aug 15 that:-
(a) CPIO had dealt your above said 95 RTI applications all dated 23 Jun 15 in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and replied correctly.
(b) CPIO had replied your above said 95 RTI applications vide letter of reference TC/9619/1/335/P! Dated 31 Jul 15. The same was dispatched on 04 Aug 15 after completion of service dispatch procedures on 03 Aug 14, since 01 Aug & 02 Aug 15 were holidays (Sat & Sun).
(c) The information sought by you with respect to this HQ and various Stns/Units under this HQ were similar in nature. Separate replies to each of your above said 95 applications seeking information of similar nature originated on the very same day would have served no meaningful purpose and would have resulted only in avoidable wastage of man hours and resources of the organisation. In view of this, CPIO had opted to reply to all your queries which were of very similar nature vide the letter of this HQ referred in para 6 (b) above.42
(d) Filing 96 appeals against 95 RTI applications i.e. 02 appeals on a single application, with respect to SNCOs' Mess, AF Stn Jalahalli, is an indication of your intentions and amounts to blatant abuse of the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, which is introduced to serve a much larger cause to protect the genuine right of citizens to information. Most of the information sought by you about ownership of land, infrastructure etc are available in public domain. Your repeated attempts by filling 95 applicatins on a single day and 96 appeals again on a single day etc are evidently in pursuance of some personal vendetta against the organisation, in which you have once served.
7. NOW THEREFORE, in the light of the above facts, I as First Appellate authority under RTI Act, 2005, hereby intimate you that CPIO had dealt your above said 95 RTI applications all dated 23 Jun 15 in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and replied correctly except that to intimate you that no Officer's Mess exists at AFH Coimbatore which is hereby intimated. I uphold the said decisions of CPIO. Your request vide ibid appeal dated 10 Aug 15 is not needed to under Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005 and above mentioned past decisions of Hon'ble CIC."
63. The appellant had sought the following information relating to CSD URC of Air Force Station Allahabad (8 cases) on 7 points vide RTI dated 23.06.2015 as follows:
" a. CSD URC of Air Force Station, Varanasi is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of CSD URC from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?43
e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the CSD URC exist? Income & expenditure of CSD URC from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
64. There was no reply on record. On query by the Commission, the CPIO had taken the stand of AOC in C policy circular as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The FAA also chose not to dispose of the first appeal.
65. The appellant had sought the following information relating to CSD URC of Air Force Station Trivandrum (2 cases) on 7 points vide RTI dated 29.06.2015 as follows:
" a. CSD URC of Air Force Station, Surya Lanka is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of CSD URC from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the CSD URC exist? Income & expenditure of CSD URC from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."44
66. The CPIO, SAC, Trivandrum, Group Captain Job D Madapat , replied vide his letter dated 06.08.2015 as follows:
"1. Refer your RTI applications (Total 56) dated 29th Jun 15 received at this office on 10 Jul 15.
2. On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organisation as stipulated by section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the requisite information cannot be furnished as you have sought information with respect to officers' mess, SNCOs' Mess, AFWWA (Local) and other Non-Public Fund ventures which are not substantially financed by Central Government, therefore, NPF management cannot be said to be a 'public authority' under section 2(h) of the RTI Act."
67. The FAA, TPS Dhillon disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.09.15 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
68. The appellant had sought the following information relating to CSD URC of Air Force Station Gandhinagar (4 cases) on 7 points vide RTI dated 06.09.2014 as follows:
" a. CSD URC of Air Force Station, Nalia is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of CSD URC from public/non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?45
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the CSD URC exist? Income & expenditure of CSD URC from 01/08/2008 to 31/12/2009 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
69. The CPIO, Group Captain V.K Dixit vide its letter dated 27.10.14 had replied as follows:
" 1. Reference is made to your following 188 applications and 57 appeals submitted under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information about AOC/CO residence, AOC/CO Contingency Fund office, Officers' Mess, SNCOs' Mess, CSD, PSI Office and its ventures, AFWWA (L) and its ventures and Airmen and DSC Mess pertaining to various Air Force stations Under SWAC:-
(e) 144 applications dated 06,07, 08, 12 and 13 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 18 Sep 14.
(f) 48 applications dated 16 and 17 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 29 Sep 14.
(g) 30 appeals dated 06 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 16 Sep 14.
(h) 27 applications dated 13 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 25 Sep 14.
5. Perusal of the above motioned applications and appeals reveal that the information sought by you is in the nature of seeking numerous details mostly pertaining to Non Public Fund which is not a public authority under Sec 2 (h) of RTI Act. Moreover, the information sought is voluminous which is not readily available and compilation of the said information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organization. Further, filing of such huge number of allocations and appeals on matters not strictly within the domain of CPIO, HQ SWAC is curtailing its administrative efficiency and therefore prejudicial to operational efficiency and mission achievement.
6. The matter was duly considered by the final authority at this HQ for supply of information sought by you and he has directed that no action be initiated on any of the applications submitted by you. The decision of the authority also finds support in the decisions of the Hon'ble CIC and a recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dared 17 September 14, which have in similar cases decried the tendency of the applications to file numerous and vexatious applications. Hence, the aforementioned applications and appeals mentioned in Para 2 above are rejected in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. 46
7. It is further informed that no action would be initiated, in future on any such applications preferred in bulk. However, the information which would be readily available and not exempted under Sec 8 of RTI Act would be furnished.
70. The appellant again had sought the following information relating to CSD URC of Air Force Station Gandhinagar on 7 points vide RTI dated 23.06.2015 as follows:
" a. CSD URC of Air Force Station, Falodi is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of CSD URC from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the CSD URC exist? Income & expenditure of CSD URC from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
71. There was no reply on record.
72. A plain reading of the above RTI applications leaves no doubt in the mind of the Commission that the appellant had filed repeated RTI applications of somewhat frivolous in nature.
47
Date of hearing-04.01.2017
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : 1. Sqn Ldr Bhupali Biswas
2. Group Captain V.K Dixit
3. Sqn Ldr T. N Swamy
4. Group Captain Prashant Choubey
5. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
6. Flight Lt Victor
7. Sqn Ldr S.S Elamurugu
AOC & CO
73. The appellant was not present despite duly served notice. The respondents were all present. The appellant had sought information relating to AOC/CO vide his RTI dated 04.01.16 from HQ EAC, Shillong (104 cases):
" a. Who had been the AOC/CO of Air Force Station, Barrackpore from 01 Jan 08 to 31 Dec 2011? How much was the expenditure on the conduct of Air Foce Day celebrations during this period, yearwise & monthwise? How much expenditure was from Public funds & Non public funds? How much was the expenditure from officers, SNCOs & Airmen? What were the venues for these celebrations? b. Who was the AOC/CO who attended these parties as a part of AF Day celebrations? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name and credentials? Was she a private citizen or public authority? On what authority was she allowed to attend some parties dealing with public servants? Did she or AOC/CO receive any gifts in these parties? If yes, under what authority & value & source of these gifts? How many guests were invited? Please provide me the names and credentials of all the guests.48
c. How much money has been spent on these celebrations from public/non public funds, from 01 Jan08 to 31 Dec 11, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private, with details & file notings?
d. How many parties were organised by taking money/ manpower/ crockery etc from NPFs, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/ Law? How many combatants/ civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Whether private contractors were involved in arrangements,with details. How much VAT, entertainment, sales,octroi,luxury taxes were paid to the govt in these celebrations?
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
74. The CPIO, Wng Cdr Sandeep Sharma vide letter dated 25th Jan 2016 replied as follows:
"1. Reference is made to your 120 applications dated 04 Jan 16, with IPOs amounting to rupees 1200/- submitted under the RTI Act 2005 ...................
2. Perusal of the above mentioned applications reveal that the information sought by you is voluminous which is not readily available and compilation of the said information, if attempted would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation. Further, filing of such huge number of applications is curtailing the administrative efficiency of the organisation and therefore prejudicial to operational efficiency and mission achievement
3. Your above said application for supply of information as sought vide ibid applications have been duly considered and rejected in terms of Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.49
4. It is again to inform you that no action would be initiated, in future, on any such or similar applications preferred by you as already intimated to you.........."
75. The appellant vide its RTI dated 06.09.2014 had sought the following information from CPIO Gandhinagar:
" a. AOC/CO contingency fund office of Air Force Station, Kannery Hills is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of AOC/CO contingency fund office from public/non public funds, from 01 Jan14 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AOC/CO contingency fund office exist? Income & expenditure of AOC/CO contingency fund office from 01/01/2008 to 31/12/2009 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
76. The CPIO Group Captain V.K Dixit replied vide its reply dated 27.10.2014 as follows:
50" 1. Reference is made to you r following 188 applications and 57 appeals submitted under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information about AOC/CO residence, AOC/CO Contingency Fund office, Officers' Mess, SNCOs' Mess, CSD, PSI Office and its ventures, AFWWA (L) and its ventures and Airmen and DSC Mess pertaining to various Air Force stations Under SWAC:-
a. 144 applications dated 06,07, 08, 12 and 13 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 18 Sep 14.
b. 48 applications dated 16 and 17 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 29 Sep 14.
c. 30 appeals dated 06 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 16 Sep 14.
d. 27 applications dated 13 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 25 Sep 14.
8. Perusal of the above motioned applications and appeals reveal that the information sought by you is in the nature of seeking numerous details mostly pertaining to Non Public Fund which is not a public authority under Sec 2 (h) of RTI Act. Moreover, the information sought is voluminous which is not readily available and compilation of the said information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organization. Further, filing of such huge number of allocations and appeals on matters not strictly within the domain of CPIO, HQ SWAC is curtailing its administrative efficiency and therefore prejudicial to operational efficiency and mission achievement.
9. The matter was duly considered by the final authority at this HQ for supply of information sought by you and he has directed that no action be initiated on any of the applications submitted by you. The decision of the authority also finds support in the decisions of the Hon'ble CIC and a recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dared 17 September 14, which have in similar cases decried the tendency of the applications to file numerous and vexatious applications. Hence, the aforementioned applications and appeals mentioned in Para 2 above are rejected in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
10. It is further informed that no action would be initiated, in future on any such applications preferred in bulk. However, the information which would be readily available and not exempted under Sec 8 of RTI Act would be furnished. "
77. The FAA, Air Vice Marshal, vide its order dated 22.12.2014 had disposed of the first appeal.
78. The appellant vide its RTI dated 04.04.2014 (11 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Gandhinagar:
51" a. Who had been the AOC/CO of Air Force Station, Bhujfrom 01. Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014? How much expenditure was from public funds & non public funds? How much was the expenditure from officers, SNCOs & Airmen ? What were the venues for these parties?
b. Who was the AOC/CO from this Station who attended these parties? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or public authority ? on what authority was she allowed to attend some parties dealing with public servants? Did she or AOC/CO receive any gifts in these parties? If yes, under what authority & value & source of these gifts?
b. How much money has been spent on these parties from public/ non public funds, from 01. Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014, along with policies & file notings. Who were the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private, with details and file notings?
c. How many parties were organised by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/ Law? How many combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
79. There is no reply or FAA order on record.
80. The appellant vide its RTI dated 29.06.15 (7cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Trivandrum:
" a. AOC/CO contingency fund office of Air Force Station, Trivandrum is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?52
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of AOC/CO contingency fund office from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AOC/CO contingency fund office exist? Income & expenditure of AOC/CO contingency fund office from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
81. The CPIO, Job D Madapat vide its letter dated 06.08.2015 had replied as follows:
"1. Refer your RTI applications (Total 56) dated 29th Jun 15 received at this office on 10 Jul 15.
3. On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organisation as stipulated by section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the requisite information cannot be furnished as you have sought information with respect to officers' mess, SNCOs' Mess, AFWWA (Local) and other Non-Public Fund ventures which are not substantially financed by Central Government, therefore, NPF management cannot be said to be a 'public authority' under section 2(h) of the RTI Act."53
82. The FAA TPS Dhillon had disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.09.2015.
83. The appellant vide its RTI dated 18.05.15 (5 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Trivandrum:
" a. Who had been the AOC/CO of Air Force Station, Chimney Hills 01. Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014? How much expenditure was from public funds & non public funds? How much was the expenditure from officers, SNCOs & Airmen ? What were the venues for these parties?
b. Who was the AOC/CO from this Station who attended these parties? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or public authority ? on what authority was she allowed to attend some parties dealing with public servants? Did she or AOC/CO receive any gifts in these parties? If yes, under what authority & value & source of these gifts?
b. How much money has been spent on these parties from public/ non public funds, from 01. Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014, along with policies & file notings. Who were the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private, with details and file notings?
c. How many parties were organised by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/ Law? How many combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
84. The CPIO Trivandrum, Group Captain Job D Madapat replied vide its letter dated 27.07.2015 as follows:
54" 1. Reference is made to your RTI applications (Total 40) dated 18th May 15 received at this office on 28th May 15 and this HQ letter of even reference dated 29.06.15.
i. Annexed please find the reply to the information sought by you vide above mentioned RTI applications for your information."
...................................................................................................(parawise reply provided)
85. The FAA TPS Dhillon had disposed of the first appeal.
86.The appellant vide its RTI dated 07.04.15 (13 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Nagpur:
" a. Who had been the AOC/CO of Air Force Station, Kanpur from 01. Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014? How much expenditure was from public funds & non public funds? How much was the expenditure from officers, SNCOs & Airmen ? What were the venues for these parties?
b. Who was the AOC/CO from this Station who attended these parties? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or public authority ? on what authority was she allowed to attend some parties dealing with public servants? Did she or AOC/CO receive any gifts in these parties? If yes, under what authority & value & source of these gifts?
b. How much money has been spent on these parties from public/ non public funds, from 01. Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014, along with policies & file notings. Who were the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private, with details and file notings?
c. How many parties were organised by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs, whether this is 55 permitted by any Act of Parliament/ Law? How many combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
87. The CPIO, MC, Nagpur,Squadron Leader Vishal Chopra, replied vide his letter dated 12.05.2015 as follows:
" 2. On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organisation as the same is exempted under section 7(9) of the RTI Act."
88. The FAA vide its order dated 22.07.2015 had disposed of the first appeal.
89. The appellant vide its RTI dated 13.09.14 (6 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Nagpur:
" a. AOC/CO RESIDENCE OF BRD is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of AOC/CO residence from public/ non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who has been the AOC/CO for the last three years? Whether AOC/CO is a public authority as per sec 2(h) of RTI Act? Whether AOC/CO, a public authority, is authorised to accept gifts/donations/articles/loans from NPFs? How many such items are there? Who approves that along with authority, policy & file notings? How many Air conditioners are fitted there, personal & official? How much was the electricity bill from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14? Who were the 56 officers responsible to accept items from NPFs & what action has been taken against them?
c. How many parties were organised by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/ Law? How many combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
90. The CPIO Devendra Singh replied vide letter dated 21.10.14. FAA Rajiv Bhalwar had disposed of the first appeal on 27.11.2014
91. The appellant vide its RTI dated 23.06.15 (4 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Nagpur:
" a. AOC/CO contingency fund office of 24 ED is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of AOC/CO contingency fund office from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AOC/CO contingency fund office exist? Income & expenditure of 57 AOC/CO contingency fund office from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies.
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
92. The CPIO, Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra vide letter dated 28.07.15 replied as follows:
"On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organization as stipulated by section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005. "
93. The appellant vide its RTI dated 23.06.15 (3 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Allahabad:
" a. AOC/CO contingency fund office of Air Force Station, Bareily is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of AOC/CO contingency fund office from public/non public funds, from 01 Aug14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AOC/CO contingency fund office exist? Income & expenditure of AOC/CO contingency fund office from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies.58
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
94. The reply of the CPIO was not on record, same stand was taken during the hearing by the CPIO that there is no public interest, and the matters are related to NPF. Hence, not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
95. The appellant vide its RTI dated 25.04.15 (9 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Allahabad:
" a. Who had been the AOC/CO of Air Force Station, Bareily from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014? How much expenditure was from public funds & non public funds? How much was the expenditure from officers, SNCOs & Airmen ? What were the venues for these parties?
b. Who was the AOC/CO from this Station who attended these parties? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or public authority ? on what authority was she allowed to attend some parties dealing with public servants? Did she or AOC/CO receive any gifts in these parties? If yes, under what authority & value & source of these gifts?
b. How much money has been spent on these parties from public/ non public funds, from 01. Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014, along with policies & file notings. Who were the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private, with details and file notings?
c. How many parties were organised by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/ Law? How many combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
e. Any other relevant information.59
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
96. The CPIO reply was not on record. The CPIO Allahabad reiterated its earlier stand.
97. The appellant vide its RTI dated 04.04.15 (1 case) had sought the following information from CPIO Allahabad:
" a. AOC in C, CAC residence is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of AOC/CO residence from public/ non public funds, from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who has been the AOC/CO for the last three years? Whether AOC/CO is a public authority as per sec 2(h) of RTI Act? Whether AOC/CO, a public authority, is authorised to accept gifts/donations/articles/loans from NPFs? How many such items are there? Who approves that along with authority, policy & file notings? How many Air conditioners are fitted there, personal & official? How much was the electricity bill from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 14? Who were the officers responsible to accept items from NPFs & what action has been taken against them?
c. How many parties were organised by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/ Law? How many combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."60
98. The CPIO reply was not on record. The CPIO Allahabad reiterated its earlier stand.
99. The Commission observes that not providing any reply was not proper on the part of the CPIO. The RTI Act mandates that the CPIO should reply to the RTI applications within 30 days providing the information or intimating the reason for denial of information.
Date of hearing: 06.01.17
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : 1. Sqn Ldr T.N Swamy
2. Sqn Ldr Bhupali Biswas
3. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
CPIO/PIO:
100. The appellant vide its RTI application dated 25.05. 2015 & 04.01.2016 (22 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Shillong:
"a. Who have been the CPIO/PIO/APIO/FAA of Air Force Station, Panagarh from 25th May 15 to 31 Dec 15 & also for PSI, AFWWA (Local), CSD Canteen, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers Mess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency & CWF of the unit/station?
b. What are their addresses, telephone nos, FAX nos, email ids? Who are the approving authorities for their appointment along with policies & file notings? When they go on leave or T/D, to whom did they hand over their charges? Please provide copies of handing/taking over registers & SRO/URO entries. If they did not hand over their charges, what action was taken against them?
c. Where have they published their details, as required by RTI Act, 2005 on IAF website? If they have not done so, what action has been initiated against them? How many RTI applications & Appeals have been received & how many were not replied 61 in time? Who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
d. How many combatants/civilians are working in RTI cells? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?
e. How many appeals have been disposed of to the satisfaction of applicants?
f. Any other relevant information.
G File notings of progress of this RTI."
101. The then CPIO Sandeep Sharma replied vide his letter dated 25.01.2016 and reiterated the stand of Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act.
102. The appellant vide its RTI application dated 25.05.2015 (7 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Nagpur:
"a. Who have been the CPIO/PIO/APIO/FAA of 31 MCU from 11 Sep 14 to 24 May 15 & also for PSI, AFWWA (Local), CSD Canteen, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers Mess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency & CWF of the unit/station?
b. What are their addresses, telephone nos, FAX nos, email ids? Who are the approving authorities for their appointment along with policies & file notings? When they go on leave or T/D, to whom did they hand over their charges? Please provide copies of handing/taking over registers & SRO/URO entries. If they did not hand over their charges, what action was taken against them?
c. Where have they published their details, as required by RTI Act, 2005 on IAF website? If they have not done so, what action has been initiated against them? How many RTI applications & Appeals have been received & how many were not replied in time? Who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?62
d. How many combatants/civilians are working in RTI cells? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?
e. How many appeals have been disposed of to the satisfaction of applicants?
f. Any other relevant information.
G File notings of progress of this RTI."
103. The CPIO Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra vide its reply dated 12th June 2015 replied and FAA Air Vice Marshal Praveen Bhatt also disposed of the first appeal.
104. The appellant vide its RTI application dated 17.09.2014 (1 case) had sought the following information from CPIO Nagpur:
"a. Who have been the CPIO/PIO/APIO/FAA of 11 BRD from 01 Jan 2007 to 10 Sep 2014 & also for PSI, AFWWA (Local), CSD Canteen, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers Mess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency & CWF of the unit/station?
b. What are their addresses, telephone nos, FAX nos, email ids? Who are the approving authorities for their appointment along with policies & file notings? When they go on leave or T/D, to whom did they hand over their charges? Please provide copies of handing/taking over registers & SRO/URO entries. If they did not hand over their charges, what action was taken against them?
c. Where have they published their details, as required by RTI Act, 2005 on IAF website? If they have not done so, what action has been initiated against them? How many RTI applications & Appeals have been received & how many were not replied in time? Who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
d. How many combatants/civilians are working in RTI cells? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?63
e. How many appeals have been disposed of to the satisfaction of applicants?
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
105. The CPIO Sqn Ldr Devendra Singh vide its reply dated 21st Oct 2014 replied and FAA Air Vice Marshal Rajiv Bhalwar also disposed of the first appeal on 27th Nov 2014.
106. The appellant vide its RTI application dated 25.05.2015 (6 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO New Delhi:
"a. Who have been the CPIO/PIO/APIO/FAA of Air Force Station, Jammu from 11 Sep 14 to 24 May 15 & also for PSI, AFWWA (Local), CSD Canteen, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers Mess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency & CWF of the unit/station?
b. What are their addresses, telephone nos, FAX nos, email ids? Who are the approving authorities for their appointment along with policies & file notings? When they go on leave or T/D, to whom did they hand over their charges? Please provide copies of handing/taking over registers & SRO/URO entries. If they did not hand over their charges, what action was taken against them?
c. Where have they published their details, as required by RTI Act, 2005 on IAF website? If they have not done so, what action has been initiated against them? How many RTI applications & Appeals have been received & how many were not replied in time? Who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
d. How many combatants/civilians are working in RTI cells? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?
e. How many appeals have been disposed of to the satisfaction of applicants?
f. Any other relevant information.64
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
107. The CPIO, Sqn Ldr U.N Pathak vide letter dated 3rd of July 2015 had replied and reiterated their stand on Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act.
108. The appellant vide its RTI application dated 25.05.2015 (10 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Gandhinagar:
"a. Who have been the CPIO/PIO/APIO/FAA of Air Force Station, Pune from 11 Sep 14 to 24 May 15 & also for PSI, AFWWA (Local), CSD Canteen, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers Mess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency & CWF of the unit/station?
b. What are their addresses, telephone nos, FAX nos, email ids? Who are the approving authorities for their appointment along with policies & file notings? When they go on leave or T/D, to whom did they hand over their charges? Please provide copies of handing/taking over registers & SRO/URO entries. If they did not hand over their charges, what action was taken against them?
c. Where have they published their details, as required by RTI Act, 2005 on IAF website? If they have not done so, what action has been initiated against them? How many RTI applications & Appeals have been received & how many were not replied in time? Who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
d. How many combatants/civilians are working in RTI cells? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?
e. How many appeals have been disposed of to the satisfaction of applicants?
f. Any other relevant information.
g. File notings of progress of this RTI."
109. There was no reply on record. During the hearing the present CPIO reiterated before the Commission the AOC in C's policy decision.
65110. The Commission finds that the RTI applications were of repetitive in nature and the appeal was frivolous in character.
Date of hearing-09.01.17
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : 1. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
2.Sqn Ldr Bhupali Biswas
3. Wng Cdr R S Pabla
4. Wng Cdr J S Sherawat
AIRMEN AND DSC MESSES:
111. The appellant vide its RTI dated 12.09.14 (8 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO New Delhi:
" a. Airmen & DSC Messes of Air Force Station, Srinagar is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Airmen & DSC Messes from public/ non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?How much money is being charged from every airmen & DSC person living in there along with authority, policy & file notings ? How much ration was withdrawn from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, how much ration was sold, both monthwise, as a result, loss to the state, who 66 were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them.
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Airmen & DSC Messes exist?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
112. The CPIO New Delhi reply is not on record. The CPIO New Delhi submitted during the hearing that the information sought was voluminous in nature and would disproportionately divert their resources.
113. The appellant vide its RTI dated 25.05.2015 (3 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO New Delhi:
" a. Airmen & DSC Messes of Air Force Station, Dehradun are built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Airmen & DSC Messes from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 24 May 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?How much money is being charged from every airmen & DSC person living in there along with authority, policy & file notings ? How much ration was withdrawn from 01 Aug 14 to 24 May 15, how much ration was sold, both monthwise, as a result, loss to the state, who 67 were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them.
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Airmen & DSC Messes exist?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
114. The CPIO Sqn Ldr U.N Pathak New Delhi reply vide his letter dated 3rd July 2015 reads as follows:
" 1. Reference is made to your 120 applications dated 25 May 15 under the RTI Act, 2005, addressed to the CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, which was received at this HQ on 03 Jun 15.
2.On perusal of your above mentioned applications it is ascertained that the information sought by you is in the nature of numerous details, which is not readily available and compilation of information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation. Hence, the same is denied u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act."
115. The appellant vide its RTI dated 25.05.2015 (6 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Shillong:
" a. Airmen & DSC Messes of Air Force Station, Mohanbari are built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Airmen & DSC Messes from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 24 May 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three 68 years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?How much money is being charged from every airmen & DSC person living in there along with authority, policy & file notings ? How much ration was withdrawn from 01 Aug 14 to 24 May 15, how much ration was sold, both monthwise, as a result, loss to the state, who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them.
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Airmen & DSC Messes exist?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
116. The CPIO reply is not on record. During the hearing the CPIO submitted they had returned the IPOs rejecting the appellant's RTI application on 26th June 2015. She also submitted that the RTI applications are of repetitive in nature affecting seriously the administrative efficiency of the organisation.
117. The appellant vide its RTI dated 12.09.14 (1 case) had sought the following information from CPIO Nagpur:
" a. Airmen & DSC Messes of 24 ED is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Airmen & DSC Messes from public/ non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?How much money is being charged from 69 every airmen & DSC person living in there along with authority, policy & file notings ? How much ration was withdrawn from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, how much ration was sold, both monthwise, as a result, loss to the state, who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them.
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Airmen & DSC Messes exist?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
118. The CPIO Sqn Ldr Devendra Singh vide his letter dated 21.10.14 had replied to the appellant.
119. The appellant vide its RTI dated 25.05.2015 (7 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Nagpur:
" a. Airmen & DSC Messes of 16 BRD are built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Airmen & DSC Messes from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 24 May 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?How much money is being charged from every airmen & DSC person living in there along with authority, policy & file notings ? How much ration was withdrawn from 01 Aug 14 to 24 May 15, how much ration was sold, both monthwise, as a result, loss to the state, who 70 were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them.
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Airmen & DSC Messes exist?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
120. The CPIO, Sqn Ldr, Vishal Chopra had replied vide his letter dated 29th July 2015. The relevant portion is extracted below:
"2. On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organisation as stipulated by Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
121. The FAA Air Vice Marshal Praveen Bhatt had disposed of the first appeal on 10th of Aug 2015 as follows:
"5. AND WHEREAS, for determination of the instant appeal, the issue for consideration is whether the CPIO has denied the information to you in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
6. AND WHEREAS, the CPIO has submitted that the sheer volume of information asked by you in your ibid applications, if collated, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organization and accordingly he was right in denying the information in terms of Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO in support has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE & Others Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011 wherein it was held that "the right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability But in regard to other information (that is information other than those enumerated in Section 4(1) (b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting 71 bogged down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to misuse or abused to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor it should be converted intoa tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of their time spent in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
7. AND WHEREAS, after having carefully considered your contentions in the instant appeals, your initial applications, the contentions of the CPIO on the appeals and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the CP10 should have disclosed such information, which was consistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005;
8. AND WHEREAS, having comidered the issue in its totality, I direct the CP10 to dispose of your initial applications dated 25 May 2015, consistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, so as to promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration. Further, considering the number of Units with respect to which information has been sought, I direct that the information be supplied within four weeks from the date of this order;
9. NOW THEREFORE, in light of the aforementioned facts, I, the First Appellate Authority dispose of your instant appeals accordingly. "
122. The appellant vide his RTI dated 12.09.14 (3 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Gandhinagar:
" a. Airmen & DSC Messes of Jaipur are built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Airmen & DSC Messes from public/ non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?72
c. Who are the members of managing committee of these messes for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?How much money is being charged from every airmen & DSC person living in there along with authority, policy & file notings ? How much ration was withdrawn from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, how much ration was sold, both monthwise, as a result, loss to the state, who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them.
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Airmen & DSC Messes exist?
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
123. The CPIO Group captain V.K Dixit replied vide letter dated 27.10.14 as follows:
" 1. Reference is made to you r following 188 applications and 57 appeals submitted under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information about AOC/CO residence, AOC/CO Contingency Fund office, Officers' Mess, SNCOs' Mess, CSD, PSI Office and its ventures, AFWWA (L) and its ventures and Airmen and DSC Mess pertaining to various Air Force stations Under SWAC:-
(i) 144 applications dated 06,07, 08, 12 and 13 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 18 Sep 14.
(j) 48 applications dated 16 and 17 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 29 Sep 14.
(k) 30 appeals dated 06 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 16 Sep 14.
(l) 27 applications dated 13 Sep 14, which were received at this HQ on 25 Sep 14.
11. Perusal of the above motioned applications and appeals reveal that the information sought by you is in the nature of seeking numerous details mostly pertaining to Non Public Fund which is not a public authority under Sec 2 (h) of RTI Act. Moreover, the information sought is voluminous which is not readily available and compilation of the said information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organization. Further, filing of such huge number of 73 allocations and appeals on matters not strictly within the domain of CPIO, HQ SWAC is curtailing its administrative efficiency and therefore prejudicial to operational efficiency and mission achievement.
12. The matter was duly considered by the final authority at this HQ for supply of information sought by you and he has directed that no action be initiated on any of the applications submitted by you. The decision of the authority also finds support in the decisions of the Hon'ble CIC and a recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dared 17 September 14, which have in similar cases decried the tendency of the applications to file numerous and vexatious applications. Hence, the aforementioned applications and appeals mentioned in Para 2 above are rejected in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
13. It is further informed that no action would be initiated, in future on any such applications preferred in bulk. However, the information which would be readily available and not exempted under Sec 8 of RTI Act would be furnished. "
124. The FAA, Air Vice Marshal, A.K Nabh vide his order dated 22.12.2014 had disposed of the first appeal.
Date of hearing-11.01.2017
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : 1. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
2. Sqn Ldr Bhupali Biswas
3. Wng Cdr J S Rawat
4. Flight Lt. Victor
WILD ANIMALS:
125. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 29.06.2015 (7 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Nagpur:
(a) How many wild animals have been there in the area of operation of 25ED, from 21 Oct 14 to 28 Jun 15, year wise?
(b) How many animals have been killed/died deliberately/by natural reasons, since then, yearwise along with policies & file notings? How many guns/bullets have been used for this purpose? How many birds have been killed & their eggs destroyed? How 74 much money has been spent on this, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for this, whether govt. officers or private?
(c) Who has taken the permission from Wild Life/Govt. Department for killing/reporting these animals/birds? Please provide all copies of applications & approvals. If the approvals have not been taken, then who are the guilty officers & what action has been taken against them?
(d) How many combatants/civilians have been working for this job? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt. law?"
(e) If these animals / birds are not killed, will it effect the operations?
(f) Any other relevant information.
(g) File notings of progress of this RTI."
126. CPIO Nagpur vide its letter dated 29.07.2015 had replied. The operative part is as follows:
"2. On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organisation as stipulated by Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
127. The FAA had not diposed of the first appeal.
128. The appellant vide its RTI application dated 29.06.2015 (7 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Trivandrum:
(a) How many wild animals have been there in the area of operation of Air Force Station, Sulur, 43 Wing, from 21 Oct 14 to 28 Jun 15, year wise?
(b) How many animals have been killed/died deliberately/by natural reasons, since then, yearwise along with policies & file notings? How many guns/bullets have been used for this purpose? How many birds have been killed & their eggs destroyed? How much money has been spent on this, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for this, whether govt. officers or private?
(c) Who has taken the permission from Wild Life/Govt. Department for killing/reporting these animals/birds? Please provide all copies of applications & approvals. If the approvals have not been taken, then who are the guilty officers & what action has been taken against them?
(d) How many combatants/civilians have been working for this job? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that?
Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt. law?"
(e) If these animals / birds are not killed, will it effect the operations?
(f) Any other relevant information.
(g) File notings of progress of this RTI."
129. The CPIO, Job D Madapat vide its letter dated 06.08.2015 had replied as follows:
"1. Refer your RTI applications (Total 56) dated 29th Jun 15 received at this office on 10 Jul 15.75
On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organisation as stipulated by section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the requisite information cannot be furnished as you have sought information with respect to officers' mess, SNCOs' Mess, AFWWA (Local) and other Non-Public Fund ventures which are not substantially financed by Central Government, therefore, NPF management cannot be said to be a 'public authority' under section 2(h) of the RTI Act."
130. The FAA TPS Dhillon had disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.09.2015.
131. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 24.10.2014 (4cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Gandhinagar:
(a) How many wild animals have been there in the area of operation of Air Force Station, Kannery Hills, from 01 Jan 95 to 20 Oct 14, year wise?
(b) How many animals have been killed/died deliberately/by natural reasons, since then, yearwise along with policies & file notings? How many guns/bullets have been used for this purpose? How many birds have been killed & their eggs destroyed? How much money has been spent on this, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for this, whether govt. officers or private?
(c) Who has taken the permission from Wild Life/Govt. Department for killing/reporting these animals/birds? Please provide all copies of applications & approvals. If the approvals have not been taken, then who are the guilty officers & what action has been taken against them?
(d) How many combatants/civilians have been working for this job? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that?
Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt. law?"
(e) If these animals / birds are not killed, will it effect the operations?
(f) Any other relevant information.
(g) File notings of progress of this RTI."
132. The CPIO's reply is not on record. The FAA Air Vice Marshal A K Nabh vide his order dated 22.12.2014 held as follows:
"1. WHEREAS, you had submitted 188 applications and 57 appeals under Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information about AOC/CO residence, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers' Mess, SNCOs' Mess, CSD, PSI office & its ventures, AFWWA (L) & its ventures and Airmen & DSC Mess pertaining to various Air Force Stations under SWAC;
2. AND WHEREAS, after due consideration of the said applications and appeals competent authority at this HQ invoking Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act rejected all your 76 ibid referred applications and appeals and also directed that no action would be initiated on any of the applications and appeals submitted by you in bulk. The said disposal was intimated to you vide this HQ letter No. SWAC/3451/1/1/P10 dated 27 October 2014;
3. AND WHEREAS, you have submitted 31 applications dated 25 October 2014 under RTI Act, 2005 which were received at this HQ on 31 October 2014 and the same were not processed as per the direction of the competent authority at this HQ as conveyed to you vide this HQ letter referred in Para2.above;
4. AND WHEREAS, you have again submitted a total number of 53 appeals dated 11 October 2014, 189 appeals._ dated 15 November 2014. and 31 appeals dated 01 December 2014 stating that CPIO, HQ SWAC,- 1AF _has not given you any reply; that CPIO cannot take exemption under Section 2 (h).. and :7 (9) of RTI Act, 2005; and requested to take action under Section 6, 19 and 2Q of-.RTI Act, 2005;
5. AND WHEREAS, after duly considering the matters placed before the undersigned and in the light of the decision of the. competent authority about rejection of your applications mentioned in Para 1 above and the direction that no action would be initiated on any of the applications and appeals submitted by you in bulk, in my opinion the applications and appeals submitted in bulk mentioned in Para 4 do not deserve any consideration and liable to be rejected;
6. NOW THEREFORE, I being the Appellate Authority in this case reject the appeals dated 11 October 2014, 15 November 2014 and 01 December 2014 accordingly.
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE:
133. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 16.09.2014 ( 5 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Gujarat:
" a. Income & expenditure of AOC/CO contingency fund, PSI, Officers Mess, SNCOs Mess, CSD Canteen, AFWWA (Local), Air Force School, Gas Agency & CWF of Air Force Station, Jaipur, from Jan 01 Jan 1995 to 15 Sep 2014, alongwith copies of polies & file notings. Please also provide the names of combatants/ civilians/ NC(E) s working in these NPFs during this period."
134. The CPIO Group captain V.K Dixit had replied vide letter dated 27.10.2014
135. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 04.07.2014 (2 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Shillong:
" a. Income & expenditure of Air Force Station, Jorhat CSD Canteen, from 01 Dec 13 to 30 Jun 14, alongwith copies of polies & file notings.77
136. The CPIO Sqn Ldr SH Haq vide letter dated 05.08.2014 replied as follows:
" 1. Please refer your application dated 04 July 2014, addressed to the undersigned, seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005 which was received at this office on 15 July 2014.
2.In response to the information requested in respect of income & expenditure of Air Force Sattion Jorhat CSD Canteed for the period from 01 Dec 13 to 30 Jun 14, it is informed that CSD Canteen are Non- Public Fund and does not come under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the requested information cannot be provided."
137. FAA Air Vice Marshal Praveen Bhatt vide order dated 18th Oct 2014 disposed of the first appeal.
138. The appellant vide its RTI application dated 10.09.2014 (5 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO Nagpur:
" a. Income & expenditure of 25 ED Air Force School , from 01 Jan 11 to 30 Nov 13, alongwith copies of policies & file notings.
139. The CPIO Devendra Singh had replied on 21.10.2014.
140. The FAA Rajiv Bhalwar had passed relevant order on 27.11.2014 as follows:
"1. WHEREAS, you had submitted 194 RTI applications dated 10 September 2014; 12 September 2014; 13 September 2014; 16 September 2014 and 17 September 2014 addressed to CPIO, HQ Maintenance Command, IAF received at the Office of CPIO MC, IAF on 22 September 2014 and 23 September 2014.
2. AND WHEREAS, CPIO, MC, IAF vide letter No. MC/5219/1/589/RTI dated 21 October 2014 had provided the information in response to your above said 194 RTI applications.
3. AND WHEREAS, you have submitted following 194 appeals (as per the details shown below) against the orders of CPIO, HQ MC, IAF (MC/5219/1/589/RTI) dated 21 October 2014:-78
SI. No. Details of Appeals Date Date of receipt
(a) Information pertaining to 01 Nov 14 07 Nov 14 AOC/CO residence of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF (Total 24 appeals)
(b) Information pertaining to Airmen 01 Nov 14 07 Nov 14 and DSC Messes of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF (Total 23 appeals)
(c) Information pertaining to 01 Nov 14 07 Nov 14 AFWWA (Local) of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF (Total 21 appeals)
(d) Information pertaining to CSD 01 Nov 14 07 Nov 14 canteen of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF (Total 21 appeals)
(e) Information pertaining to 01 Nov 14 07 Nov 14 Officers' Mess of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF (Total 18 appeals)
(f) Information pertaining to Air 01 Nov 14 07 Nov 14 Force School of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF (Total 15 appeals)
(g) Information pertaining to NPF 01 Nov 14 07 Nov 14 {AOC/CO contingency Fund, PSI, Officers' Mess, SNCOs Mess, CSD Canteen, AFWWA(Local), Air Force School, Gas Agency & CWF} of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF (Total 24 appeals)
(h) Information pertaining to Census 01 Nov 14 07 Nov 14 of trees of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF (Total 24 appeals)
(i) Who have been the 01 Nov 14 07 Nov 14 CPIO/APIO/APIO of Units under AOR of HQ MC, IAF from 01 Jan 07 to 10 Sep 07 and also for PSI, AFWWA(Local), CSD Canteen, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers' Mess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency and CWF (Total 24 appeals) 79
4. AND WHEREAS, I, being the First Appellate Authority (FAA) at this HQ, perused all the said appeals and am of the view that:-
(a) On perusal of all the above mentioned appeals, it is seen that the contentions made by you with reference to Para 3 (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (j) above, are related to Non-
Public Fund ventures which are not substantially financed by Central Government, therefore, NPF management cannot be said to be a 'Public Authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and hence, CPIO, HQ MC, IAF has rightly disposed of your 194 RTI applications dated 10 September 2014, 12 September 2014, 13 September 2014, 16 September 2014 and 17 September 2014 vide MC/5219/1/589/RTI dated 21 October 2014 pertaining to income and expenditure and information pertaining to Non-Public Fund ventures at Units under AOR of HQ MC. The contentions made by you are, thus, beyond the purview of RTI Act, 2005. The said decision of CPIO is also supported by decision passed by the Hon'ble CIC {Rakesh Singh Vs Indian Air Force (CIC/LS/A/2012/002736)} wherein, it has been held that "to qualify as public authority, an entity should either be substantially financed by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, or it should be controlled by either of these two Governments. The NPF management does not satisfy this test and, therefore, NPF management cannot be said to be a public authority u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the decisions of the CPIO and AA."
(b) Further, it is seen that the requisite information sought vide Para 3 (b) and (h) above, cannot be furnished to you without diverting the resources of this organization. Since, no 'Public Interest' as such, is being served; the said information is also exempted in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. NOW THEREFORE, your above mentioned 194 appeals dated 01 November 2014 (all received at this HQ on 07 November 2014) stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Date of hearing: 12.01.2017
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : 1. Wng Cdr J S Sherawat
2. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
3. Wng Cdr R S Pabla
4. Group Captain Prashant Choubey
80
AFWWA :
141. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 29.06.2015 (18 cases) and had sought the following information from CPIO, New Delhi:
" a. AFWWA(Local) office & its ventures of Air Force Station are built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of AFWWA(Local) from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?Do they get their salary from govt or from this non public fund?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AFWWA(Local) exist?Income and expenditure of AFWWA(L) from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies.
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
142. The CPIO, Sqn Ldr U.N Pathak replied vide letter dated 6th Aug 2015 as follows:
81" 1. Reference is made to your 114 applications dated 29 Jun 15 under the RTI Act, 2005, addressed to the CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, which was received at this HQ on 06 Jul 15.
2.On perusal of your above mentioned applications it is ascertained that the information sought by you is in the nature of numerous details, which is not readily available and compilation of information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation. Hence, the same is denied u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act."
143. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 07.09.2014 (3 cases) and had sought the following information from CPIO, Gandhinagar:
" a. AFWWA(Local) office & its ventures of Air Force Station are built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?who pays the water and electricity bills?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of AFWWA(Local) from public/ non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?Do they get their salary from govt or from this non public fund?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AFWWA(Local) exist?Income and expenditure of AFWWA(L) from 01/01/2008 to 31/12/2009 with file notings & policies.82
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
144. The CPIO Group captain V.K Dixit vide letter dated 27.10.2014 had replied. FAA Air Vice Marshal A.K Nabh in his order on 22.12.2014 had disposed of the first appeal.
145. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 07.09.2014 (3 cases) and had sought the following information from CPIO, Gandhinagar:
" a. AFWWA(Local) office & its ventures of Air Force Station are built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?who pays the water and electricity bills?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of AFWWA(Local) from public/ non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?Do they get their salary from govt or from this non public fund?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AFWWA(Local) exist?Income and expenditure of AFWWA(L) from 01/01/2008 to 31/12/2009 with file notings & policies.
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."83
146. The CPIO Group Captain V.K Dixit vide letter dated 27.10.2014 had replied. FAA Air Vice Marshal A.K Nabh on 22.12.2014 had passed relevant order.
147. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 23.06.15 (1case) and had sought the following information from CPIO, Gandhinagar:
" a. AFWWA(Local) office & its ventures of Air Force Station Vadsar are built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?who pays the water & electricity bills?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of AFWWA(Local) from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?Do they get their salary from govt or from this non public fund?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AFWWA(Local) exist?Income and expenditure of AFWWA(L) from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15with file notings & policies.
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
No reply on record 84
148. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 10.09.2014 (4 cases) and had sought the following information from CPIO, Nagpur:
" a. AFWWA(Local) office & its ventures of 31 MCU are built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?who pays the water and electricity bills? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of AFWWA(Local) from public/ non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?Do they get their salary from govt or from this non public fund?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the AFWWA(Local) exist?Income and expenditure of AFWWA(L) from 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2008 with file notings & policies.
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
149. The CPIO Sqn Ldr Devendra Singh vide letter dated 21.10.2014 had replied. FAA Air Vice Marshal Rajiv Bhalwar on 27.11.2014 had passed relevant order.
Date of hearing: 13.01.2017
Appellant : Absent
85
Respondent : 1. Wng Cdr J S Sherawat
2. Sqn Ldr Bhupali Biswas
3. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
4. Group Captain Prashant Choubey
5. Wng Cdr R S Pabla
HOUSES AND FLATS
150. The appellant vide its RTI application dated 25.10.14 (2 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO New Delhi:
"a. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased flats/ houses/land from 01 Jan 95 to 20 Oct 14, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
b. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased cars/two wheelers from 01 Jan 95 to 20 Oct 14, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
c. Any other relevant information.
d. File notings of progress of this RTI."
151. The CPIO's reply is not on record.
152. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 25.05.15 (26 cases) had sought the following information from CPIO New Delhi:
86"a. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased flats/ houses/land from 21 Oct 14 to 24 May 15, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
b. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased cars/two wheelers from Oct 14 to 24 May 15, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
c. Any other relevant information.
d. File notings of progress of this RTI."
153. The CPIO, Sqn Ldr U.N Pathak replied vide letter dated 3rd Jul 2015 as follows:
" 1. Reference is made to your 120 applications dated 25 May 15 under the RTI Act, 2005, addressed to the CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, which was received at this HQ on 3rd Jun 15.
2.On perusal of your above mentioned applications it is ascertained that the information sought by you is in the nature of numerous details, which is not readily available and compilation of information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation. Hence, the same is denied u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act."
154. The appellant had sought the following information on 18th May 2015, from CPIO, Trivandrum (3 cases):
"a. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased flats/ houses/land from 01 Jan 95 to 20 Oct 14 , working at Air Force Station, Tanjavur in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of 87 them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
b. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased cars/two wheelers from 01 Jan 95 to 20 Oct 14, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
c. Any other relevant information.
d. File notings of progress of this RTI."
155. The CPIO, Job D Madapat replied on 27.0715, FAA TPS Dhillon had passed relevant order on 16th Sep 2015.
156. The appellant had sought the following information on 25th May 2015, from CPIO, Nagpur (13 cases):
"a. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased flats/ houses/land from 21 Oct 14 to 24 May 15 , working at 4 BRD in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
b. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased cars/two wheelers from 21 Oct 14 to 24 May 15, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If 88 no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
c. Any other relevant information.
d. File notings of progress of this RTI."
157. The CPIO Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra vide letter dated 12th June 2015 replied as follows:
"2. On perusal of all the above mentioned applications, it is seen that the requisite information cannot be furnished to you in the form in which it is sought without disproportionately diverting the resources of this organisation as stipulated by Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
158. The FAA Praveen Bhatt had passed relevant order on 10th of Aug 2015.
159. The appellant had sought the following information on 25th May 2015, from CPIO, Gandhinagar (1 case):
"a. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased flats/ houses/land from 21 Oct 14 to 24 May 15 , working at Air Force Station, Borgad in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
b. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased cars/two wheelers from 21 Oct 14 to 24 May 15, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
c. Any other relevant information.
d. File notings of progress of this RTI."89
160. The CPIO's reply is not on record.
161. The appellant had sought the following information on 25th Oct 2014, from CPIO, Gandhinagar (2 cases):
"a. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased flats/ houses/land from 01 Jan 95 to 20 Oct 14 , working at Air Force Station, Pune in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
b. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased cars/two wheelers from 01 Jan 95 to 20 Oct 14, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
c. Any other relevant information.
d. File notings of progress of this RTI."
162. CPIO A.K Nabh had replied vide letter dated 22.12.2014.
163. The appellant had sought the following information on 25th May 2015 (6 cases), from CPIO, Shillong:
"a. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased flats/ houses/land from 21 Oct 14 to 24 May 15 , working at Air Force Station, Bagdogra in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?90
b. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased cars/two wheelers from 21 Oct 14 to 24 May 15, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
c. Any other relevant information.
d. File notings of progress of this RTI."
164. CPIO Sandeep Sharma vide letter dated 26th June 2015 had returned the IPOs to the appellant.
165. The appellant had sought the following information on 4th Jan 2016 (20 cases), from CPIO, Shillong:
"a. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased flats/ houses/land from 25 May 15 to 31 Dec 15 , working at Air Force Station, Hashimara in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them? b. How many officers/ Airmen/ NC(E)s have purchased cars/two wheelers from 25 May 15 to 31 Dec 15, working at Air Force Station, Amritsar in absolute nos as well as percentage of the whole? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/ Competent authority? How many of them had taken loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after the approval/ recommendation of AOC/CO/Competent authority? How many of them taken permission/ reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000 or the relevant AFO before that? If they had not taken permission/ reported the purchase, then what action was taken against them? If no action was taken against them, then who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them?
c. Any other relevant information.
d. File notings of progress of this RTI."91
166. The CPIO Sandeep Sharma vide letter dated 25th Jan 2016 had replied to the above RTI application.
Date of hearing: 16.01.2017 Appellant : Absent Respondent : 1. Group Captain Prashant Choubey
2. Wng Cdr J S Rawat
3. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
4. Flight Lt. Victor
5. Sqn Ldr Smita Dhavere OFFICERS MESS:
167. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 29th June 15 (4 cases) had sought information from CPIO Trivandrum as follows:
" a. Officers Mess of Air Force Station is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Officers Mess from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including Chairman, PMC, Mass Secretary, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food member, sports member, entertainment member, library member & accommodation member for the last three years, whether IAF officers or private/civilians?92
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Officers Mess exist?Income and expenditure of Officers Mess from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
168. CPIO JOB D Madapat had replied vide letter dated 06.08.15, and the FAA TPS Dhillon had disposed of the first appeal in his order dated 16.09.15.
169. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 23rd June 15 (6 cases) had sought information from CPIO Allahabad as follows:
" a. Officers Mess of Air Force Station Varanasi is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Officers Mess from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including Chairman, PMC, Mass Secretary, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food member, sports member, entertainment member, library member & accommodation member for the last three years, whether IAF officers or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law?93
e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Officers Mess exist?Income and expenditure of Officers Mess from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
There is no reply from the CPIO or FAA.
170. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 23rd June 15 (5 cases) had sought information from CPIO Bengaluru as follows:
" a. Officers Mess of Air Force Station Hakimpet is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Officers Mess from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including Chairman, PMC, Mass Secretary, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food member, sports member, entertainment member, library member & accommodation member for the last three years, whether IAF officers or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Officers Mess exist?Income and expenditure of Officers Mess from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."94
171. CPIO A P Satheesh Kumar had replied vide letter dated 31.07.15, FAA, S K Parhi had disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.09.15.
172. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 10th Sep 14 (2 cases) had sought information from CPIO Nagpur as follows:
" a. Officers Mess of 26 ED is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Officers Mess from public/ non public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including Chairman, PMC, Mass Secretary, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food member, sports member, entertainment member, library member & accommodation member for the last three years, whether IAF officers or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Officers Mess exist?Income and expenditure of Officers Mess from 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2008 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
173. CPIO Devendra Singh had replied vide letter dated 21.10.2014, and FAA Rajiv Bhalwar had disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 27.11.2014.
174. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 29 June 15 (3 cases) had sought information from CPIO Nagpur as follows:
95" a. Officers Mess of 23 ED is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Officers Mess from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including Chairman, PMC, Mass Secretary, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food member, sports member, entertainment member, library member & accommodation member for the last three years, whether IAF officers or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Officers Mess exist?Income and expenditure of Officers Mess from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
175. The CPIO Vishal Chopra vide letter dated 29th Jul 2015 had replied to the above RTI application.
176. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 23rd June 15 (6 cases) had sought information from CPIO Gandhinagar as follows:
" a. Officers Mess of Air Force Station Samana is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of Officers Mess from public/ non public 96 funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including Chairman, PMC, Mass Secretary, Treasurer, Bar Member, Food member, sports member, entertainment member, library member & accommodation member for the last three years, whether IAF officers or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the Officers Mess exist?Income and expenditure of Officers Mess from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
The CPIO's reply is not on record.
Date of hearing: 18.01.2017
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : 1. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
2. Wng Cdr J S Sherawat
3. Wng Cdr Smita Dhavere
4. Sqn Ldr Bhupali Biswas
5. Wng Cdr R S Pabla
177. At the outset the CPIO WAC New Delhi submitted a copy of the interim order dated 11.01.2017 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in which the 97 Commission's order dated 19.11.2015 was stayed. The Commission took note of the above fact.
ANNUAL COMMANDERS CONFERENCE:
178. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 30th Apr 2015 (6 cases) had sought information from CPIO New Delhi as follows:
"a. Annual Commanders Conference of HQ WAC had taken place on what dates from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014? How much was the expenditure on the conduct of this conference? How much expenditure was from Public Funds & Non Public Funds? How much was the expenditure from Air Force Station, Suratgarh?
b. Who was the AOC/C0 From this Station who attended this conference? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or Public Authority? On what authority was she allowed to attend some conference dealing with sensitive & classified matters? What was her schedule? How did she travel, accompanying AOC/CO or on her own? Who paid for her travel, boarding & lodging, food expenses? Who cleared her expenses, all details with authorities & file notings.
c. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private? c.How many parties were organized at this conference by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs during this period, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/Law? How manyon combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
d. Did the Chief of Air Staff attend this conference? If yes, did his wife come along with him, in what capacity, her name & credentials? Whether she also travelled by Air Force Aircraft/car? If yes, with what authority & who paid her bills along with details & file notings.
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI. "
179. The CPIO vide letter dated 8th June 2015, replied as follows:
" 1. Reference is made to your 83 applications dated 30 Apr 15 under the RTI Act, 2005, addressed to the CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, which was received at this HQ on 08 May 15.98
2.On perusal of your above mentioned applications it is ascertained that the information sought by you is in the nature of numerous details, which is not readily available and compilation of information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation. Hence, the same is denied u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act."
180. The appellant vide his RTI applications dated 25.04.2015 had sought the following information from CPIO, Allahabad (6 cases):
"a. Annual Commanders Conference of HQ CAC had taken place on what dates from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014? How much was the expenditure on the conduct of this conference? How much expenditure was from Public Funds & Non Public Funds? How much was the expenditure from Air Force Station, Suratgarh?
b. Who was the AOC/C0 From this Station who attended this conference? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or Public Authority? On what authority was she allowed to attend some conference dealing with sensitive & classified matters? What was her schedule? How did she travel, accompanying AOC/CO or on her own? Who paid for her travel, boarding & lodging, food expenses? Who cleared her expenses, all details with authorities & file notings.
c. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private? c.How many parties were organized at this conference by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs during this period, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/Law? How manyon combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
d. Did the Chief of Air Staff attend this conference? If yes, did his wife come along with him, in what capacity, her name & credentials? Whether she also travelled by Air Force Aircraft/car? If yes, with what authority & who paid her bills along with details & file notings.
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI. "
181. There is no reply on record.
182. The appellant vide his RTI applications dated 07.04.2015 had sought the following information from CPIO, Shillong (2 cases):
99"a. Annual Commanders Conference of HQ EAC had taken place on what dates from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014? How much was the expenditure on the conduct of this conference? How much expenditure was from Public Funds & Non Public Funds? How much was the expenditure from Air Force Station, Suratgarh?
b. Who was the AOC/C0 From this Station who attended this conference? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or Public Authority? On what authority was she allowed to attend some conference dealing with sensitive & classified matters? What was her schedule? How did she travel, accompanying AOC/CO or on her own? Who paid for her travel, boarding & lodging, food expenses? Who cleared her expenses, all details with authorities & file notings.
c. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private? c.How many parties were organized at this conference by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs during this period, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/Law? How manyon combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
d. Did the Chief of Air Staff attend this conference? If yes, did his wife come along with him, in what capacity, her name & credentials? Whether she also travelled by Air Force Aircraft/car? If yes, with what authority & who paid her bills along with details & file notings.
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI. "
183. CPIO Wng Cdr Sandeep Sharma vide letter dated 28 April 2015 replied as follows:
"1. Reference is made to your 35 RTI applications submitted under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information pertaining to Annual Commanders Conference and farewell parties to AOCs/Cos of units under EAC AOR.
2.Perusal of the above mentioned applications reveal that the information sought by you is voluminous which is not readily available and compilation of the said information, if attempted, would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation. Further, filing of such huge number of applications is curtailing the administrative efficiency of the organisation and therefore prejudicial to operational efficiency and mission achievement.
3.The matter was duly considered by the competent authority at this HQs for supply of information as sought vide ibid applications and rejected in terms of Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.100
4.It is further informed that no action would be initiated, on any such or similar numerous applications preferred by you."
184. The appellant vide his RTI applications dated 04.04.2015 had sought the following information from CPIO, Gandhinagar (12 cases):
"a. Annual Commanders Conference of HQ SWAC had taken place on what dates from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014? How much was the expenditure on the conduct of this conference? How much expenditure was from Public Funds & Non Public Funds? How much was the expenditure from Air Force Station, Suratgarh?
b. Who was the AOC/C0 From this Station who attended this conference? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or Public Authority? On what authority was she allowed to attend some conference dealing with sensitive & classified matters? What was her schedule? How did she travel, accompanying AOC/CO or on her own? Who paid for her travel, boarding & lodging, food expenses? Who cleared her expenses, all details with authorities & file notings.
c. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private? c.How many parties were organized at this conference by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs during this period, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/Law? How manyon combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
d. Did the Chief of Air Staff attend this conference? If yes, did his wife come along with him, in what capacity, her name & credentials? Whether she also travelled by Air Force Aircraft/car? If yes, with what authority & who paid her bills along with details & file notings.
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI.
185. There is no reply on record.
101186. The appellant vide his RTI applications dated 07.04.2015 had sought the following information from CPIO, Nagpur (13 cases):
"a. Annual Commanders Conference of HQ MC had taken place on what dates from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014? How much was the expenditure on the conduct of this conference? How much expenditure was from Public Funds & Non Public Funds? How much was the expenditure from Air Force Station, Suratgarh?
b. Who was the AOC/C0 From this Station who attended this conference? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or Public Authority? On what authority was she allowed to attend some conference dealing with sensitive & classified matters? What was her schedule? How did she travel, accompanying AOC/CO or on her own? Who paid for her travel, boarding & lodging, food expenses? Who cleared her expenses, all details with authorities & file notings.
c. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private? c.How many parties were organized at this conference by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs during this period, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/Law? How manyon combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?
d. Did the Chief of Air Staff attend this conference? If yes, did his wife come along with him, in what capacity, her name & credentials? Whether she also travelled by Air Force Aircraft/car? If yes, with what authority & who paid her bills along with details & file notings.
e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI. "
187. CPIO Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra vide letter dated 12th May 2015 had replied. FAA Praveen Bhatt had disposed of the first appeal on 22.07.2015.
Date of hearing: 19.01.2017 Appellant : Absent Respondent : 1. Wng Cdr J S Sherawat 102
2. Sqn Ldr Smita Dhavere
3. Flight Lt. Victor
4. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
5. Group Captain Prashant Choubey PSI- President Service Institute
188. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 29.06.2015 (5 cases) and had sought the following information from CPIO, Trivandrum:
" a. PSI office & its ventures of Air Force Station, Sulur, 43 Wing is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of AFWWA(Local) from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the PSI office & its ventures exist?Income and expenditure of PSI from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."103
189. CPIO Job D Madapat had replied on dated 06 Aug 2015, and FAA TPS Dhillon had disposed of the first appeal on 16 Sep 2015.
190. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 23.06.2015 (4 cases) and had sought the following information from CPIO, Allahabad:
" a. PSI office & its ventures of Air Force Station, Allahabad is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of PSI office & its ventures from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the PSI office & its ventures exist?Income and expenditure of PSI from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
191. The CPIO reply is not on record.
192. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 23.06.2015 (3 cases) and had sought the following information from CPIO, Gandhinagar:
" a. PSI office & its ventures of Air Force Station, Jodhpur. is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ 104 IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of PSI office & its ventures from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the PSI office & its ventures exist?Income and expenditure of PSI from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
193. The CPIO's reply is not on record.
194. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 23.06.2015 (4 cases) and had sought the following information from CPIO, Bengaluru:
" a. PSI office & its ventures of Air Force Station, Begumpet is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of PSI office & its ventures from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities 105 for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the PSI office & its ventures exist?Income and expenditure of PSI from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI.
195. The CPIO A P Satheesh Kumar replied on 31st Jul 2015, The FAA S.K Parhi on 16th Sep 2015 passed relevant order.
196. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 23.06.2015 (5 cases) and had sought the following information from CPIO, Nagpur:
" a. PSI office & its ventures of 23 ED is built on which land ? Whether it is a private land or Govt/ IAF land ? How much is the area of this land? If this is govt land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent?
b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/ new construction of PSI office & its ventures from public/ non public funds, from 01 Aug 14 to 21 Jun 15, along with policies & file notings. Who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/ non public funds, whether govt officers or private?
c. Who are the members of managing committee including AOC/CO, C Adm O, Officer in charge for the last three years, whether IAF officers/air warriors or private/civilians?
d. How many combatants/ civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium &civilians 106 any pay? Who decides that ? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt law? e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt, will the PSI office & its ventures exist?Income and expenditure of PSI from 01/08/2014 to 21/06/2015 with file notings & policies. e. Any other relevant information.
f. File notings of progress of this RTI."
197. The CPIO, Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra had replied vide letter dated 28th Jul 2015.
Date of hearing 23.01.2017
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : 1. Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra
2. Wng Cdr J S Sherawat
3. Group Captain Prashant Choubey
4. Sqn Ldr Smita Dhavere
SPSO
198. The appellant had sought vide RTI applications dated 04.04.15 from CPIO Allahabad information relating to SPSO, HQ CAC. The CPIO reply is not on record.
PMO
199. The appellant had sought vide RTI applications dated 04.04.15 and 25.04.15 from CPIO Allahabad information relating to PMO, HQ CAC. The CPIO reply is not on record.
SOA
200. The appellant had sought vide RTI applications dated 04.04.15 from CPIO Gandhinagar information relating to SOA, Hq SWAC. The CPIO reply is not on record.
AIR HQ 107
201. The appellant had sought vide RTI applications dated 04.04.15 from CPIO Allahabad information relating to AIR Hq. The CPIO reply is not on record.
CLMO
202. The appellant had sought vide RTI applications dated 04.04.15 from CPIO Allahabad information relating to CLMO, Hq CAC. The CPIO reply is not on record.
CJAG
203. The appellant had sought vide RTI applications dated 04.04.15 from CPIO Allahabad information relating to C JAG, HQ CAC. The CPIO reply is not on record.
SAASO
204. The appellant had sought vide RTI applications dated 07.04.15 from CPIO Nagpur information relating to SAASO. The CPIO Vishal Chopra vide letter dated 12th May 2015 had replied to the above RTI application.
CADM
205. The appellant had sought, vide RTI application dated 18.05.15, (4cases) from CPIO Trivandrum information relating to C ADM O. The CPIO Job D Madapat vide letter dated 27th July 2015 had replied. FAA TPS Dhillon vide order dated 16th Sep 2015 had disposed of the first appeal.
AFFWA
206. The appellant had sought vide RTI application dated 29.06.15 (1 case) from CPIO Trivandrum information relating to AFWWA.
207. The appellant had sought vide RTI application dated 29.06.15 (5 case) from CPIO Nagpur information relating to AFWWA. The CPIO Sqn Ldr Vishal Chopra had replied on 29.07.15.
108Commission's observation :
208. On a scrutiny of the points brought on record by the respondent it is noted by the Commission that the AOC in C of the Air Force Commands in certain cases had directed on record to take recourse to the provisions under Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act for denying the sought for information under the RTI Act. It is relevant to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dated 07- 01-2010 of in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2009. The operative part of the decision is as follows:
"4.The Commission, after notice to the petitioner Archives and also to the Central Survey Office, held that Archives cannot refuse to furnish any information unless it is covered by Sections 8 and 9 of the Right to Information Act."
"13. The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45 departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens' right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. The writ petition lacks in merit."
209. In view of the above decision, it was amply clear that u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act the CPIO is not entitled to deny information unless it is exempted under Sec 8 or 9 of the RTI Act. However, the fact remains that the provision of Sec 7(9) also cannot be overlooked and needs to be tested in the course of the present batch of appeals.
210. In the present case the Commission is aware of the fact that a large number of similarly placed RTI applications were submitted by the appellant to the public authorities in the various Air Commands. The CPIOs in some of the Air Commands furnished stereotyped and routine reply to these RTI applications. The CPIOs, in certain other Air Commands chose to refrain from providing any reply under the RTI Act to those applications under sec 6 of the RTI Act. To the pointed query by the Commission as to why the CPIOs in those Air Commands chose not to reply to the RTI applications filed by the present appellant, the concerned CPIOs, while facing the Commission through the VC facility or 109 personally, provided as justification the approval by the concerned AOC in C as mentioned above.
211. It may be mentioned here that u/s 6 and 7 of the RTI Act, the lawmakers left no option on the part of the individual CPIOs to decide whether reply to an RTI application is to be provided or not. Since the Act does not have any provision for not replying to certain class of RTI applications, it is quite strange to note that an administrative officer, howsoever high ranking or powerful he/ she may be, can override the provisions of the RTI Act. The issue raised here is of paramount importance from the point of view of implementation of the RTI Act.
212. Under Sec 25(5) of the RTI Act, a recommendation is made to the Secretary Ministry of Defence, to enquire into this entire issue and keep the Commission informed of the results thereof.
213. After perusing the RTI applications, the Commission found that the information sought were similar in nature, the appellant had filed different RTI application on different dates asking for the same information relating to different Air Force Stations, therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss his each and every RTI application. However, a bird's eye view of the above sought for information makes it amply clear that the appellant had sought voluminous information and the same also were not covered under Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act.
214. From the submission of the different CPIOs from different Air commands, the Commission came to the conclusion that, the appellant's action in the submission of a large number of RTI applications to different CPIOs in different Air Commands is clogging the administrative system in the Air Force.
215. At this juncture, the Commission found it appropriate to put reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 where it was held:
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law".
216. In HK Bansal v Department of Telegraph, New Delhi, CIC/BS/A/2014/002319-SA, this Commission concluded:
110"Whether serving/retired employees are having any right to behave in such a manner to torture his colleagues and employer? The Commission opines that such a conduct deserves to be considered as misconduct. There should be a system within the Public Authority to tackle such misconduct of any serving employee/retired employee or by any other staff member/outsourced or similar nature, because they are becoming potential hazards of RTI misuse. Public authority should have evolved a mechanism and service rules or include in conduct rules, to initiate departmental action against existing/retired employees for such misbehavior or misconduct and impose penalty in the nature of cutting increments or pension emoluments for serving or retiring employees accordingly. If the RTI application from its own employee reflects a grievance or complaint, the public authority should address grievance immediately and inform him within one month. If the RTI application is repeated, frivolous or useless one and only meant for harassing other employees or public authority as a whole, then the disciplinary action should be initiated for such alleged misconduct, leading to appropriate action. If they do not act at all against such characters (retired or not retired employees) in indulging in such misconduct of filing frivolous and entertain these repeated RTI applications it will cause huge wasting of public money. The public authority is answerable to public why they are facilitating the misconduct causing damage to public exchequer. Each department has to address the issue of misusing RTI by employee, after thoroughly examining each individual case separately."
217. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 30/05/2016 (W.P.(C) 5099/2016 & C.M. No. 21229/2016 - Shyam Kunvar vs Central Information Commission & Ors) while upholding the stand taken by the Commission held as under:-
"Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26th April, 2016 passed by respondent-CIC wherein the petitioner has been held an abuser of RTI Act and it has been concluded that there is no iota of public interest involved in the multiple applications filed by him.111
Upon perusal of the RTI application filed by the petitioner in which information of attendance of all teachers have been asked for between the years 1993 and 2001, this Court is of the opinion that the information asked for is stale and no element of public interest is involved. It seems to this Court that the petitioner's queries are at best a fishing and roving enquiry to challenge 'Mr. Arun Arya's meteoric rise from UDC to youngest ever Principal', as mentioned by the petitioner at page 5 of the paper book.
The aforesaid only confirms what the learned CIC has held. Consequently, the present writ petition and the application are dismissed."
218. From the foregoing, it is amply clear that the RTI applicant cannot use the RTI Act as a tool to satisfy his personal grievance against employer or any public authority.
219. The respondents strenuously argued that it was impossible for them to reply to each and every RTI application of the appellant. That is why they had taken a common stand and denied the information sought by the appellant u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act for which the relevant order of the AOC in C of the concerned Air Command was referred to.
220. Dealing with the point in issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhya taking a serious note of the problem of voluminous information causing diversion of resources had made the following observations :-
37....................................... Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national 112 development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty.
The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
221. For better appreciation, Section 7(9) of the RTI Act are quoted herein as below:
Sec 7 (9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.
222. The legislative scheme of Section 7(9) is very clear. The Section merely states that the CPIO is not obliged to furnish information in the format it has been asked for by the appellant, if the CPIO is of the view it would disproportionately divert the available resources of the concerned public authority. However, this by no stretch of imagination means that the CPIO concerned can deny the sought for information in the format in which it is available with the public authority concerned. So, in the present case the concerned CPIOs and the AOC in C, in the cases where this authority had also intervened have no right to deny the information on the plea that it attracts provisions of Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act.
223. However, the point which goes against the appellant clearly is that, the information which is sought is a) voluminous b) repetitive and c) clogging the entire administrative machinery of the public authorities concerned. This cannot be allowed under the provisions of the RTI Act, the meaning of which has been amplified in a crystal clear fashion by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhya as quoted above.
224. On close scrutiny of the RTI applications, it was also observed that part of the sought for information was not covered under Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act. In so 113 far as the respondent's plea of non applicability of Sec 2(h) to the NPF Funds is concerned, the Commission found it irrelevant to consider the above pleas as the issue raised by the respondent during the hearing was mainly on the aspect of Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act's applicability due to repetitive nature of RTI applications.
225. As on today, vide earlier Commission's order dated 19.11.2015, 3588 appeals of the appellant were disposed of. The same type of RTI applications, about 1000 in number, are pending before another bench of the Commission and nearly 550 are pending before this bench. Whereas the appellant could have asked for the relevant information from only one CPIO relating to separate subject matters, he chose to flood the organisation with his similar multiple RTI applications for reasons best known to him. No doubt disclosure is the rule and non disclosure is an exception, the Commission found ample grounds to treat this case as an exception. The Commission would not be able to direct disclosure in each and every RTI application which has no merit at all.
226. For the reasons stated above, this commission is of the considered opinion that CPIO and the FAA are actually not in a position to reply to such a huge volume of RTI applications which is of never ending nature. There is no substantial ground arising in these appeals warranting interference of the Commission.
227. At this stage, it is necessary to recapitulate that during the pendency of the matter before the Commission, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had passed an interim order on 11.01.2017 staying the operation of the order dated 19.11.2015 of the Commission. The operative part of the order is as follows:
"8.The above queries are only extracted from two applications, whereas the respondent has filed over 6,000 RTI applications.
9. It is submitted that the kind of queries, being made by the respondent, prima facie shows that the respondent is abusing the very purpose of the Right to Information Act. If the officers of the petitioner are going to be engaged only in dealing with the queries raised by the respondent, it would not be possible for the officers to carry on 114 their other duties. It is submitted that filing of over 6000 applications shows that the applications are vexatious.
10. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 27th April, 2017.
11. Till the next date of hearing, operation of the impugned order dated 19.11.2015 shall remain stayed. "
228. The Commission comes to the conclusion, after due analysis of all the facts placed before it during the hearings that it is also dealing with the same subject matters and the above appeals are not supplemental in nature as discussed in Paragraph 9 of this order.
229. In view of the foregoing, the matter is adjourned sine-die with a direction that it would be open to the appellant to agitate the matter before the Commission again after final pronouncement by the High Court, if he is so inclined.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 115