Central Information Commission
Varaaki vs Bureau Of Civil Aviation Security on 30 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/BOCAS/A/2023/125923
निकायत संख्या/Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/C/2023/117112
Shri Varaaki .......निकायतकताग/Complainant
... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2024
Date of Decision : 28.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Since both cases arise out of the same RTI application, the above mentioned
cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal /
on appeal Complainant
received on
125923 09.03.2023 13.03.2023 11.04.2023 -- 07.06.2023
117112 09.03.2023 13.03.2023 -- -- 10.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/BOCAS/A/2023/125923 (2) CIC/BOCAS/C/2023/117112 The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"On 06.03.2023, I have sent to the Regional Director, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, (BCAS), Chennai Airport, Chennai - 600 016, I request the Airport Authorities for the Interior and Exterior (all C.C.T.V footages) at V.I.P. Gate No.6 for 01.03.2023 and 02.03.2023 respectively. I had issued a notice to TV Footage to preserve the above documents for legal action.
Therefore, I request you to provide the CCTV footage without any delay."
The Joint Director/Regional Director, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Chennai vide letter dated 13.03.2023 replied as under:-
Page 1 "It is to intimate that the information sought for vide RTI application referred to above are exempted from disclosure as per section 8 of RTI act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.04.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant/Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Vinu Dev Sachin - Dy. Director, BCAS and Shri K K Shobhi - GM, Ops. were present through video conference during the hearing. The Appellant/Complainant contended that he is not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent and requested that the information may be provided to him.
The Respondent reiterated their contentions from the PIO's reply and further elaborated that information in the form of CCTV footage of the V.I.P. Gate No.6 could not be furnished since it is a VVIP area and overlooks the operational area. Hence the CCTV footage sought by the Appellant had to be declined. Moreover, the Respondent quoted a certain Notification which restrains disclosure of such information.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing submissions of both parties, it is evident that the Respondent had denied supply of CCTV footage to the Appellant/Complainant. However, the oral submissions cited by the Respondent are more elaborate and comprehensive than the PIO's reply, which does not even specify the exact provision of the Section 8 of the RTI Act under which the information is being denied. Hence, it is hereby directed that the Respondent shall send a revised reply to the Appellant, specifying the exact provision of the RTI Act, under which they claim exemption from disclosure of information. The Respondent may also cite the Notification referred during hearing, under which they claimed exemption from disclosure of information under the RTI Act. The Respondent shall also submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard within one week thereafter. With these observations, the appeal no. CIC/BOCAS/A/2023/125923 is disposed off accordingly.
In so far as the Complaint invoking Section 18 of the RTI Act, viz. no. CIC/ BOCAS/A/2023/117112 is concerned, since queries raised by the Complainant have been duly answered, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, there remains no case of deliberate or malafide denial or suppression of information. Hence, no Page 2 action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The case is thus disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)