Central Information Commission
Saurabh Rao vs Airports Authority Of India on 7 September, 2018
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/2017/140342
Saurabh Rao
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO/General Manager(FIN) - JVC
Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi
Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110003. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 24.03.2017
CPIO reply : 12.04.2017
First Appeal : 06.05.2017
FAA Order : 29.05.2017
Second Appeal : 12.06.2017
Date of hearing : 27.08.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 24.03.2017 sought information on nine points as under;
1. Whether there is any policy/directions/orders as per operation management and development agreement between DIAL and AAI (the "OMDA") or by virtue of any other orders/policy/internal notice/agreement vide which the Terminal 1D, Indira Gandhi Airport, Delhi was supposed/ decided/agreed to be shut down/demolished once the Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi Airport, Delhi becomes operative? If yes, then for what reasons the Terminal 1D is still in operation.
2. Which clause of OMDA or any other policy/agreement/directions/orders gives liberty/permission to GMR to advertise its name and logo on the boundary wall and other areas of the Airport? If not, then what penal Page 1 of 4 steps have been taken against the GMR for advertising its name and logo at the Airport Premises illegally.
3. Whether GMR and/or DIAL pay any revenue/Royalty/fees for advertising its name and logo on the boundary wall and other areas of the Airport? If yes, what is the total amount of revenue/royalty that has been received by AAI till date.
4. Whether DIAL/GMR is authorized to collect the Airport Development fees/charges as per OMDA and/or as per any other policy/agreement/directions/orders. If yes, how much money has been received by AAI till date on the account of Airport Development fees/charges as its share.
5. Whether any complaint has been received against the DIAL/GMR alleging DIAL/GMR has adopted practices which are not fair and reasonable including but not limited to decisions/policies/orders/directions with regard to bidding process, eligibility criteria, creating monopoly and unfair trade practices etc as per OMDA or any other law applicable in India. If yes, then what steps/measures/action has been taken against DIAL/GMR in that regard?
6. What are the policies framed/steps and measures taken/directions and orders issued by AAI to keep check and make sure that the tenders issues/bids accepted/contracts executed/policies frames by DIAL/GMR as per OMDA are fair, just and reasonable and are in consonance with prevailing laws of the country and in public interest?
7. Whether AAI sought any information from DIAL regarding the procedures/policy framed by DIAL for award of contracts and tenders to the third parties. If yes, whether the DIAL provided the same to the AAI till 20.03.2017. And in case the DIAL failed to provide the same, then what actions have been taken by the AAI against the DIAL?
Page 2 of 4The CPIO replied on 12.04.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 06.05.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 29.05.2017 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 12.06.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Smt. V.Vidya,
General Manager (Finance) cum APIO,
Airport Authority of India
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 12.04.2017 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 29.05.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant was not present to plead for his case.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant either by the respondent authority or by the first appellate authority. Proper reply should be provided to the appellant based on documents as available on record.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised point wise reply as discussed during the hearing complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 30 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the Page 3 of 4 concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय)
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु त )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
Page 4 of 4