Central Information Commission
Mrpuneet Rana vs Bureau Of Civil Aviation Security on 30 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.6, Club Building ,Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi110067, Tel No.01126182597,26182598
Complaint No. : CIC/YA/C/2015/000038/BJ
Complainant: SHRI PUNEET RANA
SHIV MANDIR WALI GALI
VILL & PO: DHEVRA
NEW DELHI110 081
Respondent: CPIO
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SECURITY (CA)
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY
A WING - I, II, III, JANPATH BHAWAN
NEW DELHI - 110 001
Date of hearing : 30.05.2016
Date of decision : 30.05.2016
Date of filing of RTI application Not indicated
CPIO's response 16.10.2014 (Transfer)
Date of filing the First appeal Not on record.
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record.
Date of filing complaint before the Commission 27.01.2015
O R D E R
FACTS:
The complainant, in his undated and unsigned RTI application, had sought information relating to Police verification in respect of the following two employees who are working with Bird World Wide Flight Services at IGI Airport:
1. Shri Manish Kumar, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh, Employee No.DELM0010, BCAS No.82178; and
2. Shri Mukesh Kumar, S/o. Shri Dalip Singh, Employee No. DELM0050, BCAS No.82146 Page 1 of 3 The CPIO in his letter dated 16/10/2014 transferred the application to O/o. RDCOS, BCAS, Delhi as the information was related to their office and endorsed a copy to the complainant. This was followed by a reminder dated 12/12/2014 and copy endorsed to the complainant.
There is nothing on record to show that he had filed first appeal before the FAA. Aggrieved by the nonfurnishing of information by CPIO, the complainant filed his second appeal before the Commission seeking the same information as sought in his RTI application. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Mathai P.U., Dy. Commissioner (BCAS) (M:9871708659);
The complainant remained absent during the hearing. The respondent stated that vide their letter dated 12/12/2014, the RTI application of the complainant was transferred to their regional office in Delhi. No action was taken by the regional office or the Head Quarters. At the time of the hearing, the representative of the public authority produced a letter dated 27/05/2016 which was being sent to the complainant in reply to his RTI application stating that the requested information is exhaustive and personal in nature and it has nothing to do with public interest. However, it is observed that there had been enormous delay in dealing with this RTI application.
OBSERVATION:
The Commission observes that this is a serious irregularity and extremely casual and callous approach of the public authority in handling RTI applications. The representative of the respondent admitted the delay in replying to the RTI application and offered unconditional apology.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the respondent, the Commission observes with concern the serious lacuna in the public authority in dealing with RTI applications. The public authority is advised to reexamine the methodology by which the RTI applications are dealt with in this organization and evolve a robust mechanism for quick disposal of RTI matters in letter and spirit respecting the provisions of RTI Act. The complainant however, was absent to substantiate his claims further, if any.
The complaint stands disposed accordingly.Page 2 of 3
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3