Central Information Commission
Shri Stya Parkash Rathi vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 19 February, 2018
क ीयसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागं गानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु िनरका, नईिद ी -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/OP/A/2009/000129
In the matter of:
Satya Prakash Rathee
...Appellant
Vs.
Associate Gen Manager(Security),
Delhi International Air Port Ltd. I.G.I Air Port,
New Delhi-110037
&
Associate Manager-Legal, Delhi International Air
Port Ltd. I.G.I Air Port, New Delhi-110037
&
Asst Vice President, Delhi International Air
Port Ltd. I.G.I Air Port, New Delhi-110037
&
PIO, O/o the Director, Room No 58, B Block
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi-110003
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 08.01.2009
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 20.03.2009
FAA Order : Not on record
Complaint : 03.06.2009
Date of hearing : 29.04.2010, 29.01.2018
Background
Sh. Satya Parkash Rathee, the Appellant, vide his RTI application dated 8.12.2008 sought
certain information from the Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL). Not getting any
response from DIAL, Sh. Satya Parkash Rathee has filed the present appeal before the
Commission.
2 The matter was heard on 4.02.2010 and reserved for order.
3 Sh. Satya Prakash Rathee, the Appellant was present with Sh. Sunil Kumar
for the hearing.
4 Sh. Milanka Chaudhury, Advocate, Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate,
Sh. Govind Vijay, Associate Manager-Legal and Sh. Sumant Yadav,
AVP-DIAL, was present on behalf on DIAL.
During the hearing Sh. Milanka Chaudhury, Advocate, Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, Sh.
Govind Vijay, Associate Manager-Legal and Sh. Sumant Yadav, AVP-DIAL on behalf of DIAL
submit that Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL) is not a Public Authority under the
RTI Act, 2005 and is not liable to provide any information to any information seeker under the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and in this regard the representative of DIAL, put on record the
statement of authorized signatory DIAL, dated 4.02.2010, wherein it is stated that the DIAL is not a
Public Authority, under the RTI Act, 2005.
However, on perusal of an old decision of the Commission, the Commission finds that in
decision No. CIC/OK/C/2006/00125 dated 17.01.2007, Delhi International Airport Private Ltd. has
been declared a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission is astonished to receive
such a statement from the Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. DIAL, knowing very well that DIAL
has been declared a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 in the above said decision of the
Commission. Sh. Govind Vijay, Associate Management and Legal and Sh. Sumant Nayan,
AVP-DIAL perhaps, tried to escape from the responsibility of implementing the provisions of the
RTI Act. 2005.
In view of the above the Commission directs President, Dial, Pradeep Panicker,
DIAL to implement the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in DIAL, including designating
the CPIO and the FAA and implement Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission takes an adverse view of the misrepresentation of the
representative of DIAL, by wrongly submitting before the Commission that the DIAL is
not a Public Authority. Hence, the Commission has decided to issue a Show Cause
notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act, to Sh. Dharmedera Yadav,CPIO, Associate Gen.
Manager (security) DIAL Delhi International Air Port Cargo Terminal I.G.I. Air Port,
New Delhi-37, Sh. Pardeep Panicker, Vice President, DIAL, Sh. Govind Vijay, Associate
Manger (Legal), Sh. Sumant Nayak, DIAL and authorized signatory - DIAL, who signed
the statement dated 4.02.2010. A separate Show Cause notice will be issued to these
Officials of DIAL.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
5.03.2010
The matter was heard on : 29.04.2010
ORDER
Sh. Satya Parkash Rathi, the Appellant, vide his RTI application dated 8.12.2008 sought certain information from the Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL).Not getting any response from DIAL, Sh. Satya Parkash Rathi filed appeal before the Commission.
During the hearing on 4.02.2010, Sh. Milanka Chaudhury, Advocate, Sh. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, Sh. Govind Vijay, Associate Manager-Legal and Sh. Sumant Yadav, AVP-DIAL on behalf of DIAL submitted that Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL) was not a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 and was not liable to provide any information to any information seeker under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and in this regard the representative of DIAL, put on record the statement of authorized signatory DIAL, dated 4.02.2010, wherein it was stated that the DIAL was not a Public Authority, under the RTI Act, 2005.
However, the Commission found that in decision No. CIC/OK/C/2006/00125 dated 17.01.2007, Delhi International Airport Private Ltd. had been declared a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission took serious note of the misrepresentation of the Respondents on the behalf of DIAL and issued a Show Cause Notice to the Respondents, vide its order dated 5.03.2010.
3In response to the Show Cause Notice of the Commission the Respondents plead as follows:-
"3. That the decision in the matter of Sh. Anil Heble is not final and continues to be under consideration. In the said matter, the Commission had passed an order without giving a hearing to DIAL. When this fact was brought to the attention of the Commission, the Commission issued notice to DIAL. Subsequently, the Commission not only heard the arguments of DIAL but also allowed it to file written submission (a copy of which has been filed along with the Review Petition)The Commission then reserved orders and no subsequent orders have been passed by the Commission till date.
ii) That the Order dated March 5, 2010 proceeds on the basis that the officers of DIAL concealed the fact that DIAL has already been declared a public authority under the purview of the RTI Act whereas fact relating to the reconsideration of the Anil Heble appeal was specifically pleaded before the Commission.
iii)That the Commission has not gone into the maintainability of the Appeal preferred by Sh. S. P. Rathi on various grounds raised by DIAL and has decided the issue only on the basis of the previous order of the Commission, which in my submission is under consideration and has not attained finality.
iv)That under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission can impose a penalty on the CPIO or an SPIO and not on any other officer. The officers of DIAL against whom the Show Cause notices have directed to be issued are neither the CPIO nor the SPIO nor have they been designated as such by DIAL or by the Commission for the reason that DIAL is not a "Public Authority".
(ii) That the Commission in its order dated March 5, 2010, has described Sh. Dharmendra Yadav (AGM-Security-Dial) as the CPIO which is factually incorrect as the said officer has not been designated as CPIO by DIAL for the reason that DIAL is not "Public Authority".
4. Without prejudice to the above, the notice under reply is misplace and is liable to be withdrawn on the following grounds:
i)That the Notices is not liable to a penalty under the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI. Act as the provisions of the said section are applicable only to CPIO or an SPIO appointed under Section 5 of the RTI Act. The Notices has never been appointed as a CPIO or an SPIO of DIAL for the reason that DIAL is not a "Public Authority" and is therefore not liable to be proceeded against of penalized under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act
ii)That the notice under reply has also been issued under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act which requires the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. The Appellant/Complainant has not shown what loss or detriment, if any, has been suffered by it by the alleged refusal to supply information by DIAL. Moreover, no pleading or claim to this effect have been made by the Appellant before the Commission in his Appeal, making out a ground for loss or detriment suffered."
The Commission tried to locate the file and deal with the alleged review petition in the case referred to by the Respondent. However, this bench has been informed by Sh. Akash Deep Chakroverti (J.S. Law) that no review petition, is pending before the Commission as alleged by the Respondent. It has been further clarified by J.S. (Law) that an application was filed by Sh. Anil Heble, the Appellant in the case, which became the trigger point for issuance of notice to DIAL only as third party. However, complete compliance of the order of the Commission was reported by the Airport Authority of India on 8.03.2007 and therefore, on 12.03.2007, no lis was pending between parties to the case needing adjudication by the Commission. This 4 position has also been clarified by Joint Secretary (Law), vide letter dated 18.04.2011 to DIAL. Therefore, as per the earlier decision of the Commission in decision No. CIC/OK/C/2006/00129 dated 17.01.2007, DIAL is a Public Authority under the RTI Act and the Commission's order is final. There is no provision for review of orders passed by the Commission. Moreover, in their own submissions, the Respondents plead :-
"DIAL has been granted exclusive right and authority for performing the functions of operation, maintenance, development, designing, construction, up gradation, modernization, financing and management of the IGI Airport and to perform services and activities constituting Aeronautical Services, the Non-Aeronautical Services (excluding Reserved Activities) at the IGI Airport pursuant to the Operation, Management and Development Agreement dated April 04, 2006 ("OMDA") signed between DIAL and AAI."
Therefore, as per the Respondents own submission, it is very clear that DIAL is performing quasi-governmental functions and the activities of DIAL impact the citizens' daily lives.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION Vs VEERESH MALIK & ORS. observed as follows:-
"The Act marks a legislative milestone, in the post independence era, to further democracy. It empowers citizens and information applicants, to demand and be supplied with information about public records; parliamentary endeavor is to extend it also to public authorities which impact citizens daily lives."
In view of the above Sh. I. P. Rao, Chief Executive Officer, DIAL, the President, Vice President and other concerned officers of the DIAL are hereby directed to implement the provisions of the RTI Act, by designating the CPIO and FAA and by implementing Section 4 of the RTI Act. The CPIO is further directed to provide complete requisite information to the Appellant as per record.
As far as penalty proceedings against the officers of DIAL is concerned, the Commission, on careful perusal of the relevant documents and replies of the officers, and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the considered opinion that for the purposes of imposing penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act a person has to be identified as a CPIO under the RTI Act, which in this case cannot be done since the CPIO has not been officially designated by the Public Authority. Therefore, penalty proceedings against the Respondent are hereby dropped. However, the commission is of the view that the information seeker has suffered harassment and detriments due to non-furnishing of the information. Therefore, the Commission deems it fit to award the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to Sh. Stya Parkash Rathi, which shall be paid by the Public Authority. The Chief Executive Officer of the DIAL is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to Sh. Stya Parkash Rathi within 2 weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
However, the Commission takes a serious view of the misleading statement made on the part of the Respondent that they are not a Public Authority under the RTI Act. Sh. Dharmender Yadav, Associate General Manager (Security), Sh. Sumant Nayak, Asst. Vice President, Sh. Govind Vijay, Associate Manager (Legal), Sh. Pardeep Paniker, Vice President are warned to be careful in future while dealing with RTI matters.
5-sd-
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
27.04.2011
Interim Order : 29.01.2018
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri S.V.Ramana,
Under Secretary cum APIO,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan
Shri Dinesh Kumar,
Counsel,
Delhi International Air Port Ltd.
On perusal of record, it was seen that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had directed the Commission to reconsider the second appeal which was decided upon earlier vide its order dated 27.04.2011. Shri Dinesh Kumar the learned counsel submitted during the hearing that he needed some time to prepare for the case.
The case is adjourned.
The registry of this bench is directed to fix another date for hearing and to ensure that the respondent CPIO, Delhi International Air Port Ltd is present invariably on the next date of hearing. Notices are to be sent to all the concerned parties for attending the proposed hearing at the CIC.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 6