Central Information Commission
Sunil Kumar vs Airports Authority Of India on 29 October, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2019/643641
Shri Sunil Kumar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
Represented by Shri Sudhanshu Jindal
VERSUS/बनाम
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
CPIO, Airports Authority of India
Through: Shri K Devadas - CPIO/Dy. CVO (I);
Shri Sachin Yadav, SM(Vig.) and Shri Dashmeet
Matheru - Mgr.
Date of Hearing : 28.10.2021
Date of Decision : 29.10.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.03.2019
PIO replied on : 05.04.2019
First Appeal filed on : 23.04.2019 &28.05.2019
First Appellate Order on : 24.05.2019 & 18.06.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint dated : 20.06.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 06.03.2019 the CPIO/CVO(I) vide letter dated 05.04.2019 furnished a point wise reply as under:-Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 23.04.2019 and 28.05.2019. The FAA/General Manager(Vigilance) vide letter order dated 24.05.2019 directed the Appellant to be present at the O/o the FAA/General Manager(Vigilance), AAI, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi on 06.06.2019 at 1100 hrs for personal hearing.
The FAA/General Manager(Vigilance) vide order dated 18.06.2019 directed the Engineering Directorate to relook at queries at SI.No.2&4 of the RTI Application dated 06.03.2019and reply directly to the Appellant.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO/Dy. CVO, AAI vide letter dated 22.10.2021 which has been taken on record. Some communications from ESSKAY Construction have also been placed on record alongwith a letter dated 04/05.02.2021, which appears to have been sent in compliance of directions issued by order dated 11.01.2021, passed by this Bench in Appeals no. CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/635900, CIC/AAOIN/A/2019/601628 and CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/637081.
The Appellant has also sent submissions dated 27.10.2021, which have also been taken on record.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for hearing held through video conference and the Respondent claimed that identical queries had been raised vide RTI applications dated 18.09.2018 and 22.11.2018.Page 2 of 3
The Second Appeals no. CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/635900 and CIC/AAOIN/A/2019/601628 arising out of the said application stood adjudicated vide order dated 11.01.2021.
The Appellant is represented by Shri Sudhanshu Jindal, who happened to be the Appellant in the five appeals which had been decided by this Bench earlier vide the order dated 11.01.2021, as mentioned by the Respondent.
Decision:
Upon examination of the facts which have transpired during the course of hearing in this case, it is noted that the Respondent's contention is factually correct. Identical queries had been raised by the Shri Sudhanshu Jindal and the Second appeal had been adjudicated as appeal no. CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/635900, while deciding a batch of 5 appeals. The same queries have once again been raised vide this RTI application clearly indicating an attempt at proxy litigation.
Be that as it may, no fresh adjudication is warranted in this case, with respect to the same queries which have already been decided by an order passed nine months ago, by this Bench.
The appeal is disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3