Central Information Commission
Mrvishwas Bhamburkar vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 1 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/YA/A/2015/000195/BJ
Appellant : Mr. Vishwas Bhamburkar
B - 72, Satellite Centre, Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad - 380015
Respondent : CPIO Sr. DCOS
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
D - 9, Gate No. 1, MIAL Residential Colony
Andheri Sahar Road ,
Andheri, Mumbai
Date of hearing : 01.06.2016
Date of Decision : 01.06.2016
Date of filing of RTI application 14.08.2014
CPIO's response 21.08.2014(transfer)
Date of filing the First appeal 22.09.2014
First Appellate Authority's response 14.10.2014
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 19.01.2015
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant sought the following information pertaining to the multilevel carparking at Mumbai International Airport Limited:
(a) "I would like to be informed of the mandatory distance that has to be maintained between the Airport Terminal Building and the car parking area.
(b) I would like to be informed of the distance that has been maintained between the multilevel/multi storeyed parking provided at the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport which is also sought to be known as Mumbai International Airport after its privatization.
(c) I would like to be informed whether this car parking facility, which is already build, has received any clearance whatsoever from BCAS, preliminary, conditional, regular, permanent or any other classification that there might be, for the aforementioned car parking to be less than 100 meters from the Airport Terminal Building. If yes, I would like to be provided an authenticated/certified copy of all such clearances given by BCAS to Mumbai International Airport.
(d) An authenticated/certified copy of the entire file relating to clearance for car parking may kindly be provided to me."
The CPIO (Mr. B P Sharma) transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to Mumbai International Airport Limited.
Page 1 of 3The appellant filed a first appeal before the F.A.A. The FAA, in its order, stated that desired information had already been provided to the appellant by the CPIO on 20.08.2014. The FAA further stated that the information sought was exempted under section 8(1)(a) as it might prejudicially affect National Security. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vishwas Bhamburkar (M: 9898679997);
Respondent: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Assistant Commissioner BCAS Mumbai (M: 8108967778) through VC;
Both the parties were present in the hearing. The appellant stated that he had sought information on four points as mentioned in the facts above. He had been informed on various occasions about the application being transferred from one office to another for appropriate action. However, from the order of FAA dated 14.10.2014, he was informed that the information sought would prejudicially affect national security and hence cannot be provided under the exemption clause of section8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The respondent stated that in response to the appellant's second appeal, on 13.04.2016 a detailed reply was sent to the appellant. However, the appellant denied having received this reply. The respondents addressing query (a) stated that the distance between the building and the carparking is approximately 110 meters. The construction is carried out in accordance with the laid down parameters.
OBSERVATION:
The aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks of 26/11 bear testimony to the fact that airports, railway stations etc. witnessing excess traffic are vulnerable areas prone to security threats. Any interference or divulging of such strategic and security-sensitive data is likely to have an adverse effect on the security of nation at large.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the deliberations held between the parties, the Commission is of the view that information on point (a) has been provided in the course of the hearing. However, in the light of the explanations offered by the respondents on the point that International Airport at Mumbai is highly sensitive from security point of view and the requisite clearances have been obtained by the operators in this regard, the Commission concurs with the view of the respondent and upholds the stand of the public authority in the matter. No further intervention of the Commission is required in this regard.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Copy to:Page 2 of 3
1 Secretary, M/o Civil Aviation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi03;
2 Chairman, Airport Authority of India, M/o Civil Aviation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi 03 Page 3 of 3