Central Information Commission
Aseem Takyar vs Ministry Of Civil Aviation on 16 October, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/MOCAV/A/2017/102356
In the matter of:
Aseem Takyar
...Appellant
VS
Shri U K Bhatia
Under Secretary, (the then CPIO/PPP Airport)
Department of Personnel & Training
(DOP&T), INGAF - Building, Room
No. 307, Block - 4, New Delhi - 110067.
&
CPIO(Immigration),
East Block-VIII, Level -V,
Sector -1, R K Puram, New Delhi - 110066. ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 24.08.2016
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 05.10.2016
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 03.01.2017
Date of hearing : 08.03.2018, 05.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 24.08.2016 sought information on six points for supply of photocopies of all concerned records whereby permission had been granted to set up special immigration counters, nos. 1 to 4 for the sake of first class & Executive class passengers at the IGI Airport, Terminal III, Delhi; copies of all relevant notings, decisions, correspondences etc. The CPIO's reply and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order were not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 03.01.2017.
1Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri P.J. Thomas,
Under Secretary cum CPIO,
Ministry of Civil Aviation
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO handed over a written submission and stated that the nodal CPIO had transferred the said RTI application to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on 31.08.2016. He further transferred the same to another CPIO in the same ministry on 01.09.2016 i.e. to Shri U.K. Bhatia, CPIO. The said CPIO and Under Secretary Shri U.K. Bhatia transferred this RTI application to the CPIO(Immigration) on 12.09.2016.
The appellant was not present to plead his case.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that all these transfers were invalid as these were administrative in nature and the Commission observed that the said RTI application was subjected to interim transfers and not sent to the correct CPIO. It was also observed that the said transfers were effected beyond the mandatory period of five days from its receipt. He himself was not sure about the holder of the information which shows an unhelpful and careless attitude of the respondent PIO which is deplorable and for which a show cause notice needs to be issued to the respondent PIO.
In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the respondent PIO, Shri U.K. Bhatia, CPIO, Ministry of Civil Aviation and the then CPIO(Immigration), Ministry of Civil Aviation u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
i. Why this RTI application was not transferred in the proper format as stipulated u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act and within 05 days as prescribed under the same Act (nodal CPIO to explain);2
ii. Why no proper information about the holder of the information was provided (respondent PIO, Shri U.K. Bhatia, CPIO, Ministry of Civil Aviation to explain the above points). iii. Why no reply was provided to the appellant in all these years(the then CPIO(Immigration), Ministry of Civil Aviation to explain on this point).
The explanation(s) to the above stated Show Cause notice(s) is/are to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO(s) within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present respondent CPIO, Ministry of Civil Aviation is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO(s) under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice(s), further action as deemed appropriate will be taken by the Commission in the present case.
The respondent CPIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time period stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO(s).
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the present respondent CPIO, Shri P.J. Thomas, Under Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letter, correspondence, e-mail etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above show cause/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.3
Adjunct Order : 05.10.2018
Respondent : Shri A.K Bhuyan, Joint Deputy
Director, Intelligence Bureau
Shri U.K Bhatia the then CPIO,
Ministry of Civil Aviation.
Shri U.K Bhatia, the then CPIO, Ministry of Civil Aviation submitted that he was allocated the work of PPP Airports (Public Private Project) including the work of Privatisation of IGI Airport but presently he was working in DOP&T. He furnished following points in support of his stand in the said case:
(i) The RTI application dated 24.08.2016 which was received in the nodal RTI Cell of the Ministry of Civil Aviation on 31st August, 2016 was allotted to him on 1st September, 2016 as he was the Under Secretary concerned dealing with this subject. He did not have information for furnishing reply relating to special immigration Counters at the IGI airport which was sought in the said RTI application.
(ii) That he made initial scrutiny the sought for information from different sources. Upon receipt of the application at the dak stage, he noticed that the information did not come under the domain of Ministry of Civil Aviation. He had however never handled any matter or seen any paper relating to immigration facilities at IGI Airport during the course of his official handling of the matter in the Ministry. It was also noticed by him that this work was not assigned to any desk/section specifically in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. While the application was referred to the Section Officer, Airports Development Section by the undersigned on 5.9.2016 for putting up the RTI Application on file as is the general procedure, he simultaneously started making enquiries for the authority/section/division which might be dealing with the subject in any other Department/Ministry of the Government of India.4
(iii) That upon enquiry with the CPIOs in the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was learnt that the Bureau of immigration coming under the aegis of Ministry of Home Affairs is the organization which deals with subject of immigration at international ports/airports.
The address of the said office was obtained. The file containing RTI application was put up to him as the CPIO by the Section Officer/AD Section on 9.9.2016, the next two days being Saturday & Sunday, the said RTI application was transferred to the CPIO in the Bureau of immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, R.K. Puram, New Delhi on 12.9.2016 for furnishing reply directly to the applicant under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) That in so far as the observation of the Commission with regard to CPIO being unsure about the holder of the information, it is submitted that the application was transferred to the correct CPIO by the CPIO, Sh. U. K Bhatia. However, it was not clear to him whether the information which the applicant had actually asked for was available with the CPIO immigration or not. In this context only, he had used the word "may be available with Bureau of immigration" which was in respect of the information and not in respect of the CPIO in the Bureau of immigration under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
(v) That he did not have any information in the Section dealing with IGI Airport Privatisation and to the best of his knowledge he was sure that the subject matter of the said RTI application did not pertain to any CPIO in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. In respect of CPIO in charge of immigration Counters operated by Bureau of immigration he was almost sure that he could have provided the sought for information to the applicant. There was no malafide intention whatsoever and in good faith he transferred the said application to the correct CPIO in the Bureau of immigration under 5 the Ministry of Home Affairs for furnishing a reply directly to the applicant.
(vi) That he would like to place on record also the fact that he was transferred from the Ministry of Civil Aviation to the DoPT on 9th September, 2016 itself asking him to report to the DoPT on 12th September, 2016, the intervening period of 11th and 12th being holidays. Since the matter is about two years old, there could be the possibility that due to work pressure he could not clear the file by transferring the application on 9th September, 2016 itself when the same was put up to him by his Section Officer. Notwithstanding this fact, he categorically admits that the application which was sent to him on 1.9.2016 electronically was transferred to the CPIO, immigration under the Ministry of Home Affairs on 12th September, 2016 of course beyond expiry of the mandatory period of 5 days from the receipt of the above stated RTI application by him for which he would seek unconditional apology from the Commission. That he had handled many RTI applications in the past, he had been working in the Ministry of Civil Aviation for about six years and had given topmost priorities to the RTI applications. That he firmly believes in the fundamental principle of sharing the maximum information with the stake holders so as to minimize the chances of inviting RTI applications. However, there are occasions when certain things are unavoidable as had happened in this case and the undersigned has now to explain the circumstances leading to the denial of information to the applicant which unfortunately was not provided to the applicant by the Bureau of immigration under MHA as of today itself as per available facts on record.
(vii) That the subject matter did not come under the domain of Ministry of Civil Aviation was also proved from the fact that the First 6 Appellate Authority while disposing of the Appeal in the matter also requested the same CPIO Bureau of immigration under the Ministry of Home Affairs to furnish requisite reply to the applicant at the time when the undersigned had already been transferred from the Ministry of Civil Aviation to the DoPT.
(viii) That he also feels since he was not present during the course of hearing in the Commission on 8.3.2018 as he was transferred from the NoCA to the DoPT in September, 2016 itself, he could not present his case and particularly the fact that the matter came under the domain of Bureau of immigration under the Ministry of Home Affairs and not under the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
(ix) That he would request the Commission to take a lenient view in the matter and to condone the delay of 5/6 days in referring the matter to the concerned CPIO i.e. the CPIO immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs due to the circumstances indicated above and he would like to assure the Commission that in future, such lapse would not recur.
Explanation from A.K Bhuyan He explained that the RTI application dated 24.08.2016 of Shri Aseem Takyar was received in the Bureau of Immigration (BOI), the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA). The MoCA transferred this RTI application to the MHA on 30.08.2016. The MHA further transferred this RTI application to the BoI by dak on 08.09.2016. The MoCA also transferred this RTI application directly to the BoI on 12.09.2016. This RTI application was received in the BoI on 15.09.2016 and 21.09.2016 from the MHA and the MoCA respectively.
The applicant, Sh. Aseem Takyar, in this RTI application had sought information on the separate immigration counters for first Class & Executive Class passengers at IGIA, Delhi. The reply was sent to Sh. Assem Takyar vide letter dated 14.10.2016.
7On perusal of the reply dated 14.10.2016 it was noted by the Commission that reply was as follows:
" Please refer to your RTI application dated 24.08.2016 forwarded by MHA vide their letter dated 08.09.2016 (received in this office on 15.09.2016) on the above cited subject.
2. As per Chapter VI, Section 24(1) and second schedule of the RTI Act 2005, the Bureau of Immigration / Intelligence Bureau is exempted from providing any information/ details on the subject."
Decision:
Based on the above explanation and on perusal of record, it was noted by the Commission that the reply dated 14.10.2016 was just and proper and on time.
In view of the above, the showcause notice issued to the then CPIO(Immigration), Ministry of Civil Aviation is withdrawn.
The explanation of Shri U.K. Bhatia, CPIO, Ministry of Civil Aviation was also justifiable. Hence, the showcause proceeding needs to be closed in the interest of justice.
In view of the above observation, the showcause proceeding is treated as closed.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ!टाचाय) Information Commissioner ( सच ू ना आय# ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप ) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date 8