Central Information Commission
Mrv Stanley Paulus vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 13 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.6, Club Building ,Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi110067, Tel No.01126182597,26182598
Complaint No.CIC/YA/C/2015/000233/BJ
Complainant: Mr. V. Stanley Paulus
Shalom, A11, Tennis Club Enclave
Jawahar Nagar, P.O.Kowdiar
Trivandrum695003
Respondent: CPIO & DCOS (CA),
Ministry of Civil Aviation
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
A WingI,II,III Janpath Bhawan
Janpath, New Delhi110001
Date of Hearing : 13/06/2016
Date of Decision : 13/06/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 11.08.2010
CPIO's response 10.03.2015
Date of filing the First appeal Not on record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of filing complaint before the Commission 22.04.2015
O R D E R
FACTS:
The complainant, vide his RTI application dated 11.08.2010, had sought information on 04 points pertaining to Aeronautical Information Service circular AIC SL No:3/2010 dated 02.10.2010. He had desired certain clarifications on the interpretation of various paras of the AIC, etc. Page 1 of 4 This matter had already been heard and decided by the Commission vide order No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000416 dated 12.01.2015 wherein the respondents had been directed to provide available information to the appellant on points 02 to 04 of the RTI application. The facts and circumstances leading to the compliant have been detailed in the complaint filed before the Commission. The complainant was not satisfied particularly with para04 concerning the security functions of BCAS.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. V. Stanley Paulus (M:9847066106) through VC; Respondent: Mr. Mathai P. U., Dy. Director (M:9871708659);
The complainant referred to the reply received from BCAS dated 10/03/2015 and stated that this reply is in contravention to the laid down regulations issued by DGCA. It was emphasized that there was contradiction in the AIC circular issued by DGCA and the response provided by CPIO(BCAS) to the complainant. It was alleged that such contradiction by two different authorities within the same ministry creates utter confusion which is not in public interest. It was articulated that the changes made by the CPIO (BCAS) are not accidental or typographical errors but a calculated substitution with a view to mislead the complainant. The gravity of the offence should be severely dealt with as per Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent however, clarified that in accordance with the gazette notification issued by the Airports Authority of India on 18/10/2007 and aeronautical information services circular issued by DGCA on 02/06/2010, the issues pertaining to airline operators including foreign airlines had been clearly settled. In an informal way, the respondent admitted that it could have been an inadvertent error in communicating the letter dated 10/03/2015 by the BCAS. In any case, the instructions for providing ground/self handling services are carried out in accordance with the aforementioned circular issued by the DGCA, which is the regulator under the Aircraft Act. Thus there should be no ambiguity in this respect.
The complainant however, emphasized the views expressed by him vide his complaint, as also the email sent to this office on 08/06/2016. He also laid emphasis on circular no. AVSEC order no. 03/2009 issued by BCAS.
The Commission however, observes as under:Page 2 of 4
At the outset it is clarified that the CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish information/documents as available on record; however, eliciting answers to queries, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. The Petitioners right extends only to seek information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record etc. or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority.
DECISION:
Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties during the hearing, it is abundantly clear that the information desired by the complainant had already been provided to him which was explained during the hearing also. The Commission is however, satisfied with the reply furnished by the respondent and no further interference is warranted in the matter. Nonetheless, the respondent is cautioned to be extremely careful and alert in answering RTI queries so that the information seekers are kept properly informed of the factual position in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The complaint stands dismissed with this direction.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4