Central Information Commission
X Prasanna Jenitha vs Bureau Of Civil Aviation Security on 3 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा /Second Appeal No. CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/132705
X PRASANNA JENITHA ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
Chennai ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 02/02/2026
Date of Decision : 02/02/2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on 15/04/2024
CPIO replied on 30/04/2024
First appeal filed on 28/06/2024
FAA's order dated 08/07/2024
Second Appeal dated 03/10/2024
Information sought:
The appellant has filed RTI application dated 15/04/2024 seeking the following information:-
" My husband namely A.Irudhayaraj, worked (13.9 years) in TATA-AIRINDIA, Sr.Sec.Agent, and forcibly terminated by RSHSR.VIJAY ANAND on 02 June 2023.Reg that on 10/11 Dec 2021, my husband was forcibly allocated in domestic cargo screening point. He scanned about 10 tons cargo. He was a non screener. His screener certificate validity expired on 17th October 2016. This cargo Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/132705 Page 1 of 5 scanning duty intentionally gave him some ULTERIOR MOTIVE only .Now he lost his life and counting his days. After Brain Tumor surgery he is not till recovering .He has two school going daughters. Several repeated representation letters forwarded to BCAS and CIVIL AVIATION HIGHER OFFICIALS through registered post and concerned emails. Although he was a non screener he followed BCAS RULES AND REGULATIONS as following details i need a clarifications as per RTI ACT-2005. My husband is underwent BRAIN TUMOR SURGERY due to mental tortured him and sudden forcibly terminated on June 2023. So kindly give us details. We need justice from injustice from Unskilled officers of Vijay Anand, Aruna, K.P.Srinivasan and J,L,Mannam to my affected husband sir.
1.What actions should be taken any airlines appropriate authority NOT followed the AIRCRAFT RULES AND ORDERS (NCASP: 7.8.1 TO 7.8.3/ AIRCRAFT RULE-22, 26, 37/ SEC ORDER-03-05/2009,01/2005.AVSEC CIR: 16/2006) - Give me the details.
2. What is BCAS RTI will give response for the failure?
3. Is any new amendment release for anybody can screen the cargo and bags? Give me details.
4. What are the works done screener at the x-ray points?
5. Was there any surprise check available in AI Domestic Cargo on BCAS SIDE at 10/11 Dec 2021?
6. What action taken to Mr.K.P.Srinivasan, AIRINDIA-SEC MGR, who retired on May 2023, he released BCAS CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS in social media in 2019, which was against to BCAS, years back caught and cancelled his instructor certificate by BCAS, 1YEAR before his RETIREMENT he got his AEP. How it was possible?
7.Mr.K.Feroze Khan, Sr.Sup.sec NOT followed the instruction while screener found out many dummy prohibited and dangerous items in domestic cargo, he did not respond years back and August 2023 ALERT PERIOD TIME HE MISSED IN A/C ACCESS CONTROL POINT,SOME ISSUES HAPPENDED? What kind of action should take against him? Give me the details.
8. Recently heard the news of Mrs.P.Priyadharshini,Sr.Sec.Off, staff no:80045066,january 2023,when she attended XRAY SCREENER EXAM at FINAL DAY VIVA time she had a valid IMAGE INTERPRATATION IMAGES, which was supposed to ask her. She passed exam. Not even single action taken by RSHSR. Now she does scanning duty. This is highly sensational issues. There Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/132705 Page 2 of 5 was complaint raised to RSHSR to Vijay Anand. What action should you take against her? Was not come under BCAS RTI? What kinds of favoritism are only for local influential?
8. Is BCAS RTI Rules and Regulations are same to all?"
2.The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 30/04/2024 stating as under:
"1.Not related to BCAS. However, w.r.t. question: CAN NON SCREENER SCAN The XRAY?: It is to state that only certified screeners can perform screening duty.
2.Question is not clear.
3.No such Amendment has been issued.
4.Screener has to perform the screening duties as per BCAS Norms.
5.Not related to BCAS
6.Not related to BCAS
7.Not related to BCAS
8.Not related to BCAS
9.Not related to BCAS
10.Not related to BCAS
11.As per section 8 1(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
12.As per section 8 1(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant, filed a First Appeal dated 28/06/2024. The FAA vide its order dated 08/07/2024, held as under:-
Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/132705 Page 3 of 5"1.Whereas, an application dated 15.04.2024 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed by Smt X Prasanna Jenitha, No 14, Balavinayagar Street, Nanganallur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600114, seeking information on 12 queries as stated in the RTI application.
2.Whereas, the CPIO concerned of BCAS, Regional Office Chennai, after having gone through the available records/documents pertaining to above said RTI application, furnished the reply on 30.04.2024.
3.Whereas, aggrieved by the CPIO's decision, the applicant filed the present First Appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 28.06.2024. This was after the expiry of the period of thirty (30) days specified under section 19(1), without providing any reasons that she was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
4.Consequently, the appeal is disposed of as 'not admitted'.
5.An appeal against this order may be preferred under section 19 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Central Information Commission (CIC) within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of this order."
3.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission by filing instant Second appeal on 28/10/2024.
4. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: G. Suguna Singh, CPIO/Director is participated in the hearing on VC The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to plead his case. The Respondent reiterated the facts of the case and further submits that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant. He further submits that certain information sought by the Appellant is classified as sensitive aviation security information, and can only be given to law enforcement agencies.
DECISION Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant.Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/132705 Page 4 of 5
In view of the aforementioned factual and legal position wherein it is noted that the Respondent has sent appropriate response to the Appellant, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, no further adjudication is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The Appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 02.02.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:
1. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Ministry of Civil Aviation Bureau Of Civil Aviation Security O/o Regional Director, Chennai Airport, Chennai 600016
2. X PRASANNA JENITHA Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/BOCAS/A/2024/132705 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)