Central Information Commission
Gp Capt Atul Jain vs Indian Air Force on 24 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/IAIRF/A/2022/624435
In the matter of
Gp Capt Atul Jain
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Directorate of Personal Services
Air HQ (Vayu Bhawan), Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 106
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 20/01/2022 CPIO replied on : 10/03/2022 First appeal filed on : 16/03/2022 First Appellate Authority order : 19/04/2022 Second Appeal dated : 29/04/2022 Date of Hearing : 23/03/2023 Date of Decision : 23/03/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Present in person
Respondent: Wg Cdr Devender Singh, CPIO-Present in person Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide a copy of the information provided to Satish Kumar Sharma in compliance with the Order issued by CIC in file No.CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/656825 on 27/08/2021.
2. Since AOA is a member of Air Force Naval Housing Board (AFNHB) and receives a copy of all Board Meetings. Provide copies of the Minutes of the AFNHB Board meetings held in 2019, 2020 & 2021.
3. Provide inspection in AOA office with regard to correspondence or otherwise with AFNHB.1
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant stated that he was aggrieved over non-receipt of information. He requested the Commission to direct the disclosure of information on all the points. The appellant placed on the record of the Commission the previous decisions of the Commission to exhibit that although AWHO was not a public authority however directions were issued by the Commission to provide the accessible information to the information seeker. He claimed that the respondent authority being one of the board members of AFHNB ought to have received the Minutes of the AFNHB Board meetings. Therefore, he requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to disclose the said minutes. He however failed to indicate the exact statutory provision under which the minutes were accessible to the respondent authority. The CPIO on the other hand stated that the information requested for in points no. 1 and 2 was denied on the ground that AFHNB was not a public authority, therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 were not applicable. He also submitted that the information sought for in point no. 3 was barred from disclosure as per Section-8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. The written submissions of the CPIO dated 17.03.2023 was received and taken on the record of the Commission. Since the appellant denied the receipt of the said submissions, he was handed over a copy of the same during the hearing.
Observations:
On a perusal of the RTI application, the Commission noted that query no. 1 of the appellant viz. "Provide a copy of the information provided to Satish Kumar Sharma in compliance of the Order issued by CIC in file No.CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/656825 on 27/08/2021" is in the nature of a non- compliance query camouflaged as a RTI query. The Commission apprised the appellant that only the parties to a particular case can get the information related to the compliance or non-compliance of the order of the Commission. The contents of the documents, if supplied by the CPIO in compliance to a party to the case, cannot be given to a third party as this falls under the ambit of third-party information and was exempted from disclosure under Section- 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission observed that in query no. 2, the appellant was seeking copies of the minutes of AFNHB board meetings, which was denied to the appellant by the CPIO on the ground that AFNHB was not a public authority. The 2 Commission referred to the order dated 21.05.2009 in File No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00622-SM wherein it has been unequivocally held that AFHNB is not a public authority within the definition of Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, as per settled law, AFHNB is not a public authority for the purpose of RTI Act, 2005. However, the appellant claimed that even if AFHNB is not a public authority, the sought for information related to AFHNB was accessible by the respondent authority, hence, should be provided to him. The Commission clarified that availability of information and accessibility of information and sharing the information are all different aspects. For the information to be disclosable, it must be either available in the official records of the public authority or accessible by the public authority under extant rules/regulations. Needless to mention, it must also not be exempted under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO has submitted that the information requested for in point no. 2 was neither available nor accessible. The appellant averred during the hearing that the sought for minutes "ought to have been" a part of the official record, since the respondent authority was one of the board members. He did not indicate the specific statutory provision or rule under which the details pertaining to the board meetings of AFHNB were accessible by the respondent authority.
In effect, the Commission concluded that the sought for information in query no. 2 cannot be provided to the appellant on the ground that it is neither available nor accessible by the respondent authority. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Poorna Prajna Public School v. Central Information Commission & Ors. in WP(C). No. 7265/2018 :
"Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is "information" as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term "held by the or under the control of the public authority" used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public authority is entitled to access under any other law from a private body. A private body need not be a public authority and the said term "private body" has been used to distinguish and in contradistinction to the term "public authority" as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, information which a public authority is entitled to access under any law, from private body, is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished."3
Qua query no. 3, the CPIO while citing Section-8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 has sufficiently explained the reasons for non-disclosure. The CPIO has submitted that the operational capability of IAF was sensitive in nature and disclosure may have a bearing on the security of the nation. Therefore, the Commission upheld the denial of information.
Decision:
For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission does not find any scope for granting relief to the appellant. The instant second appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4