Central Information Commission
Amit Pratap Shaunak vs Airports Authority Of India on 4 May, 2021
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2019/112287
Shri Amit Pratap Shaunak ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Airport Authority of India
Date of Hearing : 03.05.2021
Date of Decision : 04.05.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.05.2018
PIO replied on : 13.08.2018
First Appeal filed on : 10.09.2018
First Appellate Order on : 22.10.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 18.03.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.05.2018 seeking information on the following 11 points:-Page 1 of 3
Etc. The PIO/Dy. General Manager vide letter dated 13.08.2018 furnished a point wise response to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.09.2018. The FAA/Regional Executive Director vide order dated 22.10.2018 directed the CPIO to provide copies of the land records showing AAI ownership to the appellant on point no. e within 15 days.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Later, the hearings were held in audio conference mode after informing both the parties, in view of the rapid increase in Covid-19 infections.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the order of the FAA has not been complied with, till date. Furthermore, the Page 2 of 3 queries were bifurcated by the CPIO and transferred to different departments but no satisfactory information has been received by him subsequently.
The Respondent represented by Shri K K Shobby, CPIO and GM (Operations) and Shri Babu Raj, Jt GM (Land Management) participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Shobby stated that the order of the FAA has been complied with vide letter dated 26.04.2021 wherein copies of the relevant documents were annexed. While pointing out the delay in compliance of the FAA's order, the Appellant denied the receipt of any written submission dated 26.04.2021 from the CPIO.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that there has been a substantial delay in providing the information in compliance with the FAA's order. Moreover, due to non-receipt of the reply, the Appellant stated that he was unable to ascertain if it satisfactorily answers his RTI queries. Thus, in view of the above, the Commission directs Shri Chandramouli FAA and Regional Executive Director, AAI to re- examine the first appeal as also the compliance of the earlier order of the FAA and pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting a fair opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. The above mentioned direction should be complied with by 30.06.2021 under intimation to the Commission. The Commission also directs Shri K K Shobby, CPIO and GM (Operations) to furnish an explanation in writing to the Commission by 30.06.2021 regarding the reason for not complying with the FAA's direction in a timely manner.
With the above directions, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3