Central Information Commission
Mrvishwas Bhamburkar vs Airport Authority Of India on 16 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/VS/A/2015/001658/BJ+CIC/VS/A/2015/001844/BJ
Appellant : Mr. Vishwas Bhamburkar
B72, Satellite Centre, Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad - 380015.
Respondent I : CPIO & GM (Security),
Ministry of Civil Aviation
Dy. Commissioner of Security (CA)
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
AWing - I, II, III, Janpath Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110001.
Date of Hearing : 16/06/2016
Date of Decision : 16/06/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 22.09.2014
CPIO's response 10.11.2014, 13.11.2015
Date of filing the First appeal 04.02.2015
First Appellate Authority's response 20.03.2015
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 22.06.2015
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant sought pointwise information in his RTI application dated 22.09.2014 and the CPIO reply in a tabular form is as under: S. No. Information requested Information provided by the PIO
(a) I would like to be informed of the mandatory Information sought comes distance that has to be maintained between the under the purview of Security Page 1 of 3 Airport Terminal Building and the car parking area. Directorate hence forwarded A copy of the notified/gazette/other accepted rules in to GM(Security). this regard may kindly be provided to me.
(b) I would like to be informed of the distance (in Information sought comes meters/feet) that has been maintained between the under the purview of JVC multilevel/multistoreyed parking provided at eh Cell, hence forwarded to GM Chhatripati Shivaji International Airport, which is (JVC) also sought to be known as Mumbai International Airport after its privatization.
The appellant filed a first appeal on 04.02.2015 to the F.A.A.. The FAA passed an order on 20.03.2015 and stated that the appellant has made multiple RTI applications to harass the public authority. Public authority can provide only existing, available and recorded information in his application, he has not asked for information as per the definition of 2 (f) of RTI Act. It is stated that the appellant has to seek information which is available in the material form with the public authority and he cannot ask for opinion or advice from the CPIO under the RTI Act.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vaghela appellant's representative (M:9427608632) through VC; Respondent: Mr. Mathai. P. U., Dy. Director (M:9871708659)BCASNew Delhi;
The appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application dated 22/09/2014. The respondents stated that the appellant had filed a number of applications on the same subject that are being dealt with in different files. It was also explained that the appellant had been furnished a reply by GM(Security) & CPIO, AAI on 10/11/2014. The attention of the Commission was drawn to the judgment pronounced in case no. CIC/YA/A/2015/000195/BJ dated 01/06/2016 relating to the same subject matter.
DECISION:
Based on the submissions made by both the parties and in view of the aforesaid judgment already passed in the matter, there is no merit in any intervention by the Commission.
The appeals stand disposed accordingly.Page 2 of 3
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3