Central Information Commission
Omprakash Kashiram vs Indian Air Force on 5 May, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/121136
In the matter of:
Omprakash Kashiram
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Directorate of Personal Services,
Air Head Quarters
Vayu Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110011
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/01/2019 CPIO replied on : 20/03/2019 First appeal filed on : 04/03/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 22/03/2019 Second Appeal dated : 01/05/2019 Date of Hearing : 04/05/2021 Date of Decision : 04/05/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: The Appellant in his second appeal has stated that he has opted not to attend the hearing.
Respondent: Wg Cdr S K Ojha, CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information regarding Rafale Aircrafts:
1. Provide name and designation of members of the Technical Evaluation Committee, which prepared report for purchase of Rafale aircrafts from Dassault Aviation, France among other bidders including HAL.
2. Provide a copy of the report submitted by the said Technical Evaluation Committee.
3. Give name of the Air Chief Marshal, who had appointed members of the said Technical Evaluation Committee.
4. And other related information.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal memo had stated that he has opted not to attend the hearing and therefore his case may be considered on merits. In his second appeal memo, he had stated that he is not satisfied with the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 20.03.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the CPIO in his reply had rightly denied the information u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act while stating that the 36 Rafale aircrafts are being procured through lnter-Government Agreement of France and India. As per Article - 10 of the IGA, protection of classified information and material exchanged under IGA will be governed by the provisions of the security agreement signed on 25 Jan 2008. Further, information is confidential in nature and public revelation of the same may lead to its subsequent availability to adversaries, which will have a direct bearing on the security and strategic interest of the State. Hence, no further relief can be given to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) सरना सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू 2 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3