Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Defence on 24 March, 2021
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/DODEF/A/2019/117537+
CIC/DODEF/A/2019/117536
In the matter of:
Nutan Thakur
... Appellant
VS
CPIO / Dy. Secretary (Air Acquisition),
Air Acquisition (Capital) Wing,
Ministry of Defence, D (Air - I),
Room No. 301, Vayu Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001
...Respondent
File No. 117537 117536 RTI application filed on : 27/11/2018 07/12/2018 CPIO replied on : 12/12/2018 20/12/2018 First appeal filed on : 08/01/2019 08/01/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 30/01/2019 30/01/2019 Second Appeal Filed on : 12/04/2019 12/04/2019 Date of Hearing : 23/03/2021 23/03/2021 Date of Decision : 23/03/2021 23/03/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Harish Kumar, Director & CPIO, Air Acquisition and Shri AN Sinha, Director & DPIO and Shri S S Chauhan, Section Officer(Air-I), all present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1.Provide details of the various Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court and various High Courts about the Rafale Deal Controversy related to the purchase of 36 multirole fighter aircraft for an estimated price of 1 Rs.58,000 crore (equal to 7.8 billion euros) by the Defence Ministry from France Dassault Aviation.
2. Provide copies of the documents related to the action taken on the said PILs.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide satisfactory information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date the desired information has not been provided to her particularly the details of the action taken on the PILs.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his submissions dated 17.03.2021. He also explained that the judgment dated 14.12.2018 is comprehensive and all the aspects raised in the different PILs are also included in the said judgment.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and the written submissions of the CPIO dated 17.03.2021, it is noted that complete and factual information about the pending PILs was provided to the appellant on 12.12.2018. It is further noted that the CPIO in his written submissions had answered every issue raised by the appellant in her second appeal. Under such circumstances, the Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply so given.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeals are 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 2