Central Information Commission
Arun R A vs Airports Authority Of India on 21 November, 2025
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2024/641680
CIC/AAOIN/A/2024/640598
Arun R A ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Airport Authority of
India, Chennai T. N ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 641680 28.04.2024 22.05.2024 05.06.2024 14.06.2024 02.09.2024
2. 640598 29.04.2024 30.05.2024 05.06.2024 24.06.2024 02.09.2024
Note: The instant set of appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
similar RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 18.11.2025
Date of Decision: 20.11.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2024/641680
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Page 1 of 131. "Provide the certified copy of Letter No AAI/SR/M/2-1(6)/EA/R&P/ dated 22.03.2024 issued by RHQ (SR) as response to my representation which was referred by Assistant Manager B BHULAKSHMI of Vijayawada Airport to generate the Letter No AAI/BZ/PF/HR/2024 dated 05 April 2024.
2. If any official document is provided as response to any representation filed by any employee posted at any Airport under AAI SR, does the HR officials have the power or authority to deny the copy of that reply received through official channel from higher authority to any official filing any representation through proper channel in AAI? If so, provide the certified copy of any such authorisation letter available with the HR department of Vijayawada Airport as per relevant provisions of RTI Act 2005.
3. If any such authorisation letter as mentioned in query 1 for denying the response letter to any representation filed by any official of any Airport under AAI SR is not available with the HR Dept of Vijayawada Airport, provide the exact grounds based on which the response letter originated by RHQ SR and received by HR department of Vijayawada Airport was intentionally denied to me by Airport Manager B Bhulakshmi till date. Provide the certified copy of the official document based on which AM B Bhulakshmi or HR department has the power to deny me the official response letter issued to me by RHQ SR, as per relevant provisions of RTI Act 2005.
4. In the letter number AAI/BZ/PF/HR/2024/ dated 5th April 2024 it is mentioned in Para 1 (b) that " as per AAI policy completion of basic training course (BTC) is the prerequisite for consideration for appointment to the post of junior assistant (FS)" . If that is the case, provide the certified copy of the official document generated by the concerned official of AAI SR and submitted before the Honourable High Court of Kerala or any other higher court to inform about this prerequisite for appointment before the ex-servicemen were sent for Page 2 of 13 training to FSTC KAOLKATA by the Appointing Authority of AAI SR. The certified copy of that document is requested as per provisions of RTI Act 2005."
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point No. 1: Certified Copy of RHQ letter no. AAI/SR/M/2-1(6)/EA/R&P/dated 22.03.2024 is enclosed.
Point No. 2 & 3: A citizen has a right to get only such information from a public authority which is held by the public authority or which is held under its control.
Further, a CPIO is not supposed to provide the information questions of the applicant since it do not come under the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005 Point No. 4: Please refer Page-4, Clause-4 of Advertisement Notification no. SR/01/2018, under "Selection process & Syllabus for Junior Assistant(Fire Service)."
(Copy enclosed)"
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 14.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.09.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/AAOIN/A/2024/640598
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2024 seeking information on 6 points in addition to what was sought in the above RTI Application:
"5. Kindly provide the date on which HR department of Airport Authority of India Southern Region received the copy of the Kerala High Court order pertaining to WPC 11686/2019 and WP(C) 11348/2020 as per the official records.Page 3 of 13
6. It is mentioned in Para 23 of the Kerala High Court order WPC 11686/2019 and WP(C) 11348/2020 to Revise the Rank list of Junior Assistant Fire Service pertaining to AAI SR/01/2018. So, provide the certified copy of the document originated by the official concerned at AAI SR instructing to revise the rank list as ordered by the Honourable Kerala High Court.
7. If the rank list has been revised as per the directions in the court orders WP(C) 11686/2019 and 11348/2020, provide the certified copy of the revised rank list showing the positions of Mr Benny Varghese, Mr Vidyanand M and Mr Arun R A in the newly revised rank list as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005
8. If the rank list has not been revised till date as ordered by the Honourable High Court of Kerala in WP(C) 11686/2019 and 11348/2020, provide the certified copy of any document originated by any competent authority of AAI SR inorder to avoid contempt of court proceedings against the Appointing Authority/Authorities of AAI SR for deliberate violation of the above mentioned court order.
9. If the rank list pertaining of AAI SR/01/2018 has not been revised as ordered by the Honourable High Court of Kerala in the verdict of WP(C) 11686/2019 and 11348/2020 till April 2024, provide the certified copy of any document originated by any competent authority of AAI SR instructing not to revise the rank list as ordered by the Honourable High Court of Kerala in the above-mentioned court orders.
10. If the competent authority of AAI-SR had approached the Honourable Kerala High Court or any other Higher court against the Verdict and orders passed in WP(C) 11686/2019 and 11348/2020 till 16th April 2024, provide the details of the same as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005."
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:
"Point No. 1 to 4: Repetition of seeking information is exempted under RTI Act as per CIC decision vide ref No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014.Page 4 of 13
Point No. 5: 23.10.2021 Point Nos.6-9: As directed by the Hon'ble High Court, the candidates were appointed as per the merit/rank list and reservation norms.
Since vacancies were available for the post of Jr.Asst (FS) and the petitioners (Ex- servicemen) who were lower in the merit than that of the last selected candidate, all the petitioner(s) were issued offer of appointment to the post of Jr.Asst (FS) for nomination of Basic Training Course(BTC), after receipt of Court judgment in WP(C) no.11686/2019 and WP(C) no.11348/2020. Also, the seniority list which is as per merit/rank published in AAI website on 21.12.2023.
Point No.10: Review petition R.P No. 595 of 2022 was filed by AAI in the Hon'ble High Court of kerala and Hon'ble Court had passed the final order dated 09.08.2023."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 24.06.2024 upheld the reply provided on points 5-10 and directed the CPIO 'to provide a copy of the earlier reply given to the RTI application Registration No. AAICH/R/E/24/00052 dt.28.04.2024, to substantiate that query Nos. 1 to 4 of RTI request dt.29.04.2024 is repetitive.' 2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.09.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
3. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Ravi, JGM & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
4. At the outset the Appellant admitted to having filed the two RTI Applications in quick succession containing a repetition of the four points raised in the first application. The Appellant stated his dissatisfaction with the reply provided by the CPIO and sought to be heard on the lines of his exhaustive written arguments filed prior to the hearing on Page 5 of 13 16.11.2025. Some of these arguments were taken on record for context and perspective as under:
"I had submitted an RTI application vide RTI Application No. AAI/CH/R/E/24/00053 dated 29.04.2024 seeking specific and certified documents from the Airports Authority of India, Southern Region (AAI-SR). The information sought was critical and pertained to the handling of representations, court-related submissions, and non-compliance to the Honourable High Court of Kerala's Judgment in WP(C) Nos. 11348/2020 & 11686/2019, which unequivocally directed AAI-SR to revise the 2019 rank list and issue appointments to me and five other ex-servicemen within a specific timeframe of one month.
The CPIO issued a superficial and evasive reply dated 30.05.2024 in response to the queries of my RTI regarding denial of seniority and not granting appointment within the one-month period as directed by the Honourable High Court of Kerala. The CPIO'S replies to the information sought contains vague statements, irrelevant justifications, and outright denials without citing valid exemptions under Sections 8 or 9 of the RTI Act 2005.
The CPIO's response constituted deliberate and constructive refusal as well as active suppression of material information, fundamentally violating my rights under Sections 2(f), 4(1)(d) and 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
For Queries 2 & 3: Evasion of Factual-Constructive Denial of Information I had sought certified copies of any internal authorisation empowering specific HR officials the right to deny employees, copies of communications from higher authorities. Crucially, if no such letter existed, i requested disclosure of the grounds on which such a denial was made by the then Assistant Manager B Bhulakshmi (the PIO Who has hence retired from AAI) when I had sought copy of the official communication from AAI, SR (i.e., the administrative rule relied upon).Page 6 of 13
The CPIO completely evaded this query, provided no information, no records, and no explanation for denying me the copy of the official reply letter from AAI, SR.
This was not a hypothetical or opinion-based query. I had sought documentary evidence of an administrative power or the specific document which contained the rules guiding such an action by the then Assistant Manager(HR) B Bhulakshmi (Who has now retired during the period of pendency of the First appeal) For Query 4: Deemed Refusal- Provided Misleading and Irrelevant Information I had requested a certified copy of the specific document filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala where AAI-SR allegedly cited the completion of a Basic Training Course (BTC) as a prerequisite for appointment (the ground used to deny us appointments within one month and to avoid revising the rank list as ordered by the Honourable Kerala High Court).
If such a prerequisite had existed, and if the appointing authority of AAI AR had no intention of obeying the judgement to give us appointment after revising the rank list within one month as ordered by the Honourable Kerala High Court in October 2021, then AAI, SR must have objected to the judgement by the Honourable High Court of Kerala then and there itself and must have ideally filed any case challenging the Judgement of the Honourable High Court of Kerala. But none of these were done........
For Queries 5 to 9- Suppression of Information on Compliance to Court Orders with Malafide Intent I had specifically sought certified copies of specific communications, the revised rank list, and internal orders issued by competent authority in AAI SR to comply with the High Court's specific direction to revise the 2019 rank list within one month.
The CPIO's bald statement that appointments were made "as per merit/rank list and reservation norms" is a false and evasive statement, as the rank list was demonstrably not revised within the court-mandated timeframe, and the seniority protection of ex-servicemen remains unresolved......."Page 7 of 13
5. The Respondent reiterated the replies on record and sought to explain at length the factual background of the information sought for by the Appellant as placed on record vide their written submissions dated 15.11.2025 stating inter alia as under:
"1. The RTI applicant Shri. Arun. R.A is the employee of Airports Authority of India and presently working as Assistant(Fire Service) at AAI-Vijayawada Airport.
2. Shri. Arun. R.A has forwarded the representation dated 31.01.2024 to re-instate his seniority and Basic Pay addressed to Airport Director, Vijayawada through proper channel.
3. The said representation was forwarded by Vijayawada Airport to RHQ-SR and it was examined by AAl-Regional Headquarters- Southern Region and decision of Competent Authority was communicated to APD-Vijayawada vide letter no. AAI/SR/M/2- 1(6)/EA/R&P dated 22.03.2024 (Copy enclosed) with the request to communicate the decision to the individual. Accordingly, Vijayawada Airport communicated the decision of Regional head quarters to the applicant Shri. Arun. R.A. vide letter no. AAI/BZ/PF/HR/2024 Dated 05.04.2024.
4. The applicant has sought Certified copy of RHQ letter from Vijayawada airport and the same was not provided since the contents of RHQ letter dated 22.03.2024 was already conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 05.04.2024. However, the applicant filed the RTI Application vide ref no. AAICH/R/T/24/00052 dated 28.04.2024 addressed to PIO-Southern Region.
5. He had filed RTI dated 29.04.2024 containing 10 questions out of which first 4 are repeated questions from RTI application dated 28.04.2024. The information sought under s.no. 1,2,3 & 4 was repetition of questions and the same was already replied under ref no. AAI/SR/RTI/EA/R&P dated 20.05.2024 and hence it was stated that "Repetition of seeking information is exempted under RTI Act as per CIC decision vid ref no.Page 8 of 13
CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.20140". Further, reply was also provided in respect of S.No. 5,6,7,8,9 and 10.
6. Though reply given, the appeal has been preferred by a RTI applicant Shri. Arun. R.A vide registration no. AAICH/A/E/24/00022 dated 13.06.2024 to FAA.
7. FAA vide letter no. AAI/SR/RED/RTI/Appeal/2024 dated 24.06.2024 has stated that reply given by PIO for the queries s.no. 5 to 10 is appropriate and S.no. 1 to 4. "
PIO had given reply stating that Repetition of seeking information is exempted under RTI act: and no supporting documents has been provided to the applicant for substantiating that the query is Repetition".
8. FAA ordered to provide the copy of document to substantiate that query Nos. 1 to 4 of RTI request dated 29.04.2024 is repetitive.
9. As directed by FAA, copy of said letter already given has been once again provided to the applicant once again vide letter no. AAI/SR/RTI/2024/E-52 dated 22.05.2024 with enclosures.
10. In respect of Query No. 4, it is relevant to mention that the prerequisite conditions of successful completion and passing of Basic Training Course was clearly spelt out in letter of Selection to the post of Jr. Asst. (Fire Services) dated 22.11.2021 and offer of appointment to the post of Jr. Asst. (Fire Services) issued vide letter dated 11.10.2022.
11. For the RTI queries at S.no. 9, Rank list has been revised as per the Orders of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) 11686/2019 and 11348/2020 and issued vide this office letter no. AAI/SR/M/2-1(6)/EA/R&P dated 07.02.2025 with the approval of Competent Authority and handed over to the applicant/official(s). RTI queries at S.no.6 to 9 are on same subject and covered under said reply. RTI query at 5 & 10 has been already replied."
Page 9 of 136. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that under the garb of exercising his right to information, the Appellant is channelizing a grievance and seeks to question the action/inaction of the Respondent by raising speculative and conjecture based queries which cannot be deemed as "information" as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, even on points where the information has been provided, the Appellant is challenging the correctness and relevance of such information, which is an extension of his grievance channelized through the averred speculative queries. As far as the reply of the CPIO is concerned the Commission does not find any scope of intervention per se as the same is found to be in compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is Page 10 of 13 purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
(Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because Page 11 of 13 the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. Furthermore, as observed earlier the arguments tendered by the Appellant during the hearing merely suggest conjecture and hypothesis to challenge the merits of the CPIO's reply. Here, the Appellant is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties Page 12 of 13 concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
8. Having observed as above, the Commission is unable to appreciate the contentions of the Appellant and finds no scope of action in the instant matter.
9. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 20.11.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO General Manager (HR), Airports Authority of India, Regional Headquarters, Southern Region, Chennai Airport, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
- 600016 2 Arun R A Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)