Central Information Commission
Pankaj Arora vs Airports Authority Of India on 10 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.CIC/AAOIN/A/2017/135059
Pankaj Arora
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO & Airport Director
Airport Authority of India, Mangaluru
International Airport, Bajpe - 574142.
&
PIO/ Jt. GM(Comml)/Sr. Airport Authority
of India, Director of Commercial, BHQ/SR
Southern Region, Operational Office, Chennai
Airport, Chennai - 600027.
&
PIO/ GM(Engineering), Airport Authority of India
O/o the Regional Executive Director, Opp. Parsiwada,
Sahar Road, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai - 400099.
&
PIO/Director, Airport Authority of India,
SP International Airport, Ahmedabad - 380003.
&
GM(Commercial), Airport Authority of India
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110003. ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 07.01.2017
CPIO reply : 02.02.2017, 22.02.2017, 27.02.2017
First Appeal : 25.02.2017
FAA Order : not on record
Second Appeal : 18.05.2017
Date of hearing : 02.08.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 07.01.2017 sought certain information regarding details of tenders floated at Mangaluru International Airport and at SVPI Airport, Ahmendabad for Vehicle Parking Rights as under:
11. Who was H1 & H2 (highest and the second highest bidders) after opening of the financial bid.
2. Did the parties, i.e. the H1 & H2 fulfil all the conditions necessary to qualify in the technical bid.
3.Copies of all relevant documents submitted by the concerned parties in connection with the consideration of the Technical bid.
4. Other related information.
The CPIO replied on 02.02.2017, 22.02.2017 & 27.02.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 25.02.2017. The First Appellate Authority(FAA)'s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 18.05.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri R. Rajesh,
Assistant General Manager cum CPIO,
Airport Authority of India, New Delhi
Shri Jay Shankar,
HOD cum CPIO,
Airport Authority of India, Mengaluru
Shri Manoj Gangal,
Airport Director cum CPIO
Airport Authority of India, Ahmedabad
Shri N.Jayakumar,
Joint General Manager cum CPIO
Airport Authority of India, Chennai
Smt. Renuka Devi,
Assistant General Manager cum PIO
Airport Authority of India, Mumbai
2
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO, Mangaluru submitted that they had provided the requisite replies vide their letters dated 02.02.2017, 22.02.2017 and 27.02.2017. The respondent CPIO, Ahmedabad submitted the requisite reply on 23.02.2017 (along with annexures). The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant contested replies on point nos. 2,3,4 and 5 but was satisfied with replies provided on point nos. 1 and 6 of the stated RTI application.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant for point nos. 1-6 of the above stated RTI application and no reply was provided for point nos. 7-11 of the above mentioned RTI application. It was also noted that replies on point nos. 1, 2 and 6 were just and proper. The sought for information on point nos. 3,4, 5, 9,10 & 11 of the said RTI application are third party information, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent authority by virtue of its order dated 24.07.2018 had already provided information on point nos. 3 and 4 suo motu as a measure towards greater transparency. The Commission did not like to comment on the same. On point nos. 7 & 8 of the said RTI application, a proper reply should have been provided to the appellant, as the sought for information on both of these points is eminently disclosable under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.
Be that as it may, since the requisite information on point nos. 7 & 8 of the above stated RTI application is still not provided to the appellant in this case, the present respondent authority i.e. Shri Manoj Gangal,Airport Director cum CPIO, Airport Authority of India, Ahmedabad is ordered to provide information on these points, complete in all respects (legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
3The 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 observation/direction/warning, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharya ( अिमताभ भ ाचाया )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु
)
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra
Dy. Registrar
011- 26182594 / [email protected] अजय कु मार तलपा ा, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4