Central Information Commission
Mrnand Kishore vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 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/2015/002020/BJ
Appellant : Mrs. Renu Sharma
W/o Shri Umesh Sharma
Quarter No. C2, Airport Colony, Airport Road,
Near Race Course,
Airport Authority of India,
Rajkot Airport
Rajkot 360006
Respondent(s) : CPIO and Airport Director
Airport Auhority of India,
Civil Aviation, Rajkot Airport
Rajkot 360006
Date of Hearing : 30/06/2016
Date of Decision : 30/06/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 19.02.2015
CPIO's response 10.04.2015
Date of filing the First appeal 02.04.2015
First Appellate Authority's response 05.05.2015
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 16.07.2015
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant vide her RTI application dated 19.02.2015 had sought information on 19 points in relation to the details of employment of her husband Mr. Umesh Sharma in the respondent organization. The details sought by the respondent inter alia pertained to basic salary drawn; scope of work; name, designation and duration of reporting of such reporting officers who were working during the tenure of appointment of her husband as Assistant General Manager (Electrical), etc. Page 1 of 3 The CPIO vide its response dated 31.03.2014 provided information on 16 points to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the response the appellant preferred a first appeal before the FAA on 02.04.2015. The FAA vide its reply dated 05.05.2015 ordered the CPIO to provide information in reference to point 8 of the application within 15 days subject to exemptions laid down in section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA also stated that information available with the public authority in a fiduciary relationship shall not be disclosed and that disclosure may also impact the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Dilip Murlidhar Sajnani, Airport DirectorRajkot (M:09427207439); Mr. Harshvardhan, Hindi Officer/InchargeRTI (M:8460565445) through VC;
The appellant remained absent during the hearing. The respondent stated that whatever information that was available with their Administrative Office had been shared with the appellant. A letter indicating pointwise details had been sent to the appellant on 10/04/2015. With regard to point no. 8, the respondents claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(e), (h) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Thereafter, the appellant filed the first appeal before the appellate authority which was replied on 05/05/2015 detailing the reasons on each of the issues raised in the appeal.
The appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the respondent or to substantiate her claims further.
DECISION:
On perusal of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the respondents, in the absence of the appellant, no further details could be ascertained regarding the specific information sought by the appellant. The Commission observed that the respondent had furnished the information desired by the appellant. No intervention of the Commission was required in the matter.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Page 2 of 3 Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3