Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 29 August, 2013

                           Central Information Commission
            Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
                       Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
                       Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

                                                        Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003768
                                                                       August 29, 2013



Appellant                      :      Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal

Respondents            :       Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and 
                                     Ministry of Home Affairs
 
Date of Hearing                :      29.08.2013


                                    INTERIM ORDER


       The present appeal, filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal against Bureau 

of Civil Aviation Security and Ministry of Home Affairs (PP Division), was taken up 

for   hearing   on   29.08.2013   when   the   Respondents--Bureau   of   Civil   Aviation 

Security   were   present   through   Shri   M.T.   Baig,   CPIO   and   Shri   R.N.   Dhoke, 

Appellate Authority. The Appellant was present in person. 


Facts of the case:

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.07.2012 before the CPIO,  Airports Authority of India, New Delhi seeking following information:

CIC/SS/A/2012/003768 Page 1 of 8 2 "1.   Is   it   true   that   some   order   AVSEC   order   No.   06/2009   was   ever   issued   exempting also private individuals His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Shri Rovert   Vadhera   (with   his   wife)   from   pre­embarkation   security­checks   apart   from   listed   other authorities on post?
2. Copy of the said AVSEC order No. 06/2009 as referred in query (1) above   together   with   complete   and   detailed   information   together   with   related   documents/correspondence/file notings etc on drafting the said AVSEC order No.   06/2009.
3. Copy of file­notings/correspondence/documents etc on inclusion of private   individuals His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Shri Rovert Vadhera (with his wife) in   the list of those exempted from pre­embarkation security­checks.
4. Is the said AVSEC order No. 06/2009 still in force as at present?
5. Are some more individual persons added to the list of those exempted from   pre­embarkation security­checks after issue of the said AVSEC order No. 06/2009?
6. If   yes,   please   name   the   individual   persons   added   to   the   list   of   those   exempted   from   pre­embarkation   security­checks   after   issue   of   the   said   AVSEC   order No. 06/2009 enclosing also copies of all orders in this regard issued after the   said   AVSEC   order   No.   06/2009   on   the   aspect   of   exempting   pre­embarkation   security­checks.
7. Is   it   true   that   an   Airbus   had   to   be   towed   away   bypassing   norms   for   facilitating a test­flight by Shri Rovert Vadhera as referred in enclosed news­report?
8. If   yes,   please   provide   complete   and   detailed   information   together   with   related   file   notings/documents/correspondence   etc   on   such   out­of­norms   towing   away of Airbus to facilitate an individual (Shri Rovert Vadhera)
9. Is it true that the then Union Civil Aviation Minister Shri Prafulla Patel was   present at time of such out­of­norms towing away of Airbus to facilitate an individual   (Shr Rovert Vadhera)
10. Complete   and   detailed   information   together   with   related   correspondence/documents/file notings etc on role, if any, of the then Union Civil   Aviation Minister Shri Prafulla Patel on such out­of­norms towing away of Airbus to   facilitate an individual (Shri (Rover Vadhera).
2
11. Any other related information."

3. The CPIO, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security vide his letter dated 28.08.2012  declined the disclosure of information in respect of point No. 2 to the Appellant  citing exemption u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, while also providing point­wise reply to  the Appellant in respect of point Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 of the RTI application. As for point  No.   3,   the   CPIO   informed   that   the   information   sought   in   this   point   pertains   to  Ministry   of   Home   Affairs.   As   for   the   remaining   points,   the   CPIO   stated   that  information   is   more   closely   related   to   CPIO,   DGCA,   Technical   Area,   Opps.  Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi, which is a separate public authority.

4. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO, filed an appeal  dated   03.09.2012   before   the   Appellate   Authority   which   the   Appellate   Authority  decided vide his order dated 27.09.2012 upholding the CPIO's reply. The Appellate  Authority also mentioned that the CPIO has already marked copy of his reply dated  28.08.2012 to the other CPIOs i.e. DGCA & MHA for giving reply to the Appellant  directly. 

5. The  Appellant  thereafter   also  received   a  reply  dated   11.09.2012   from   the  CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs which reads as follows:

"As   regards   proposals   for   exempting   private   individuals   from   pre­embarkation   security   checks,   MHA   may   examine   the   matter   in   consultation   with   the   Central   Security   Agencies   for   recommending   the   inclusion   of   the   names   of   some   individuals on security grounds to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. However, the details   CIC/SS/A/2012/003768 Page 3 of 8 4 in this regard are exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act­2005 and, therefore,   copies of the related documents cannot be provided to your."

6. The Appellant thereafter challenged the above reply of the CPIO, Ministry of  Home   Affairs   before   the   Appellate   Authority,   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   vide   an  appeal dated 19.09.2012. This appeal of the Appellant, however, according to his  present   appeal,   had   not   been   replied   to   by   the   Appellate   Authority,   Ministry   of  Home Affairs. 

7. The Appellant then filed the present appeal before the Commission.

8. During the hearing, Appellant states that presently he is only pressing for  information sought in point Nos. 2 & 3 of his RTI application which reads as follows:

" 2. Copy of the said AVSEC order No. 06/2009 as referred in query (1) above   together   with   complete   and   detailed   information   together   with   related   documents/correspondence/file notings etc on drafting the said AVSEC order No.   06/2009.
3. Copy of file­notings/correspondence/documents etc on inclusion of private   individuals His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Shri Rovert Vadhera (with his wife) in   the list of those exempted from pre­embarkation security­checks."

9. The   Respondents--representing   the   Bureau   of   Civil   Aviation   Security--  inform the Commission that they are not concerned with the process of inclusion of  names of private individuals in the list of persons, who are exempted from security  4 check. According to them, this is done by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which sends  the list to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, which, in turn, forwards the same to the  Bureau of Civil Aviation Security for the purpose of issuing the Aviation Security  (AVSEC) order. 

10. The Appellant, on his part, states that denial of information by the Bureau of  Civil   Aviation   Security   and   the   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs   is   not   correct.   It   is   his  argument   that   when   all   those   persons   who   are   having   Z+   security   have   to   go  through the security check, then how can the two persons (mentioned in his RTI  application) be allowed to be exempted from security check. He also asserts that  there cannot be any security threat to said persons since the security check is done  by security agency only. 

11. Having heard the arguments/submission above, the Commission is of the  view that the Ministry of Home Affairs is also required to be heard in the matter.  Therefore, the Commission hereby directs that the matter be adjourned for further  hearing.   Issue   notices   for   hearing   to   all   the   parties   including   the   CPIO   (PP  Division), Ministry of Home Affairs.

(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated by CIC/SS/A/2012/003768 Page 5 of 8 6 (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar 6 Address to the parties:

1. Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal 1775 Kucha Lattushah Dariba, Chandni Chowk Delhi 110 006
2. The Central Public Information Officer (RTI) & Asstt. Commissioner (CA) Bureau of Civil Aviation Security  Q­Wing, Janpath Bhawan Janpath New Delhi 110001
3. The Appellate Authority (RTI) & Addl. Commissioner of Security Bureau of Civil Aviation Security  Q­Wing, Janpath Bhawan Janpath New Delhi 110001
4. The Central Public Information Officer (RTI) & Director (VS)  Ministry of Home Affairs  (PP Division) NDCC­II Building, 3rd Floor Jaisingh Road New Delhi 110001
5. The Appellate Authority (RTI) & Joint Secretary (PP)  Ministry of Home Affairs  (PP Division) NDCC­II Building, 3rd Floor CIC/SS/A/2012/003768 Page 7 of 8 8 Jaisingh Road New Delhi 110001   8