Central Information Commission
Satish Kumar Sharma vs Indian Air Force on 28 August, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/656825
In the matter of:
Satish Kumar Sharma
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Directorate of Personal Services
Air Head Quarters, Vayu Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 106
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 12/07/2019 CPIO replied on : 02/09/2019 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Second Appeal dated : 13/11/2019 Date of Hearing : 27/08/2021 Date of Decision : 27/08/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Wg. Cdr. SK Ojha, CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Names of Director General (DG) AFNHB (Air Force Naval Housing Board) from Indian Air Force during the period 2008-2019.
2. Names of the DG AFNHB who were promoted after coming back to Indian Air Force from AFNHB during 2008-2019.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO has denied the desired information u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant stated that he has not received the sought for information even though the information is available with the IAF, therefore, he should be given compensation and any other relief deemed fit.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 02.09.2019, stating that the AFNHB does not fall under the definition of "Public authority" as per Sec 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. He also referred to decisions of the Commission to support this view , given vide CIC /WB/C/2008/00622-SM dated 21.05.2009 and CIC/IAIRF/A/2017/162605/SD dated 04.10.2018. He also explained that even though they have sent two letters to the AFNHB for providing the desired information on 19.07.2019 & 15.08.2019, however, they denied to share any information while taking shelter of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that if the Commission directs he will provide the information related to Air Force. With regard to the delay, he submitted that since a response to their letter from AFNHB was received by them only on 01.09.2019, a reply was given to the appellant on 02.09.2019 therefore there was no intentional delay on their part.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the CPIO vide his reply dated 02.09.2019 had stated that since AFNHB is not covered u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to them and therefore no reply can be provided. However, it may be noted by the CPIO that as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act the definition of the term 'information' includes such information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any prevalent law in force; it follows then that if information on the said paras is available with the Respondent office or can be accessed from them, it should be parted with. Now that the CPIO is willing to share the desired information which is purely related to Air Force, the CPIO is directed to do so.
With regard to the issue of delay, the Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO therefore no action is required.2
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on points no. 1 & 2 as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3