Central Information Commission
Anagha vs Indian Air Force on 14 October, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/904509/SD
Date of Hearing: 16/09/2016
Date of Final Order: 13/10/2016
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Anagha A Kolhe
E-1003
Jal Vayu Vihar
Sector A
Powai (Mumbai)
Maharashtra-400076
Respondent : CPIO
Directorate Of PS
Air Hq (Vayu Bhavan)
Rafi Marg
New Delhi-106
RTI application filed on : 29/01/2014
PIO replied on : 05/03/2014
First appeal filed on : 16/03/2014
First Appellate Authority : 07/05/2014
order
Second Appeal dated : 02/06/2014
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 7 points regarding Air Force Naval Housing Board in terms of the provisions of suo-moto disclosure in public domain as per Section 4 (b) of the RTI Act viz. disclosure of powers/duties, decision making process, norms set for discharge of functions, categories of documents held, list of all files pertaining to AFNHB held at Air HQ, and sought inspection of said files.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:1
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Wg Cdr D Anil Kumar, CPIO, IHQ of MoD (Air) present in person.
Appellant stated that she is aggrieved with the fact that she has been denied information without claiming any exemption under the Act and that this is in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. At the outset, she contended that the question of Air Force Naval Housing Board (AFNHB) being a public authority or not is irrelevant to the facts of this case as she has sought information from Indian Air Force (IAF) and not from AFNHB. She reiterated the provisions of Section(s) 2(f), 2(h), 2(j) & 4 of the RTI Act, to further insist that since Indian Air Force is a public authority, she cannot be denied the information sought in the present matter unless they fall under one of the exemptions of Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act. She exemplified these arguments in detail placing reliance on certain High Court and Supreme Court judgments viz. CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (CA No. 6454 of 2011); Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administratuive Officer & Ors. (AIR 2010SC615); Poorna Prajna Public School Vs. CIC {W.P (CIVIL) NO. 7265 of 2007} and to emphasise on the importance of 'right to know' she quoted the Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raj Narain (4 SCC 428). The basic premise of her contention being since what she has asked for is information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and the same is under the control of IAF, then taking the rationale of the Courts in similar issues, the respondent should provide the information which it already has under its control and if not, then by accessing it from AFNHB.
Furthermore, since CPIO in his reply has raised the issue of AFNHB being a public authority or not, she made certain contentions regarding the chairmanship of AFNHB, and stated that since the chairman of AFNHB holds the chair in an ex-officio (while explaining the origin & meaning of the term ex- officio) capacity by virtue of him being the Air Officer-in-Charge Administration (AOA) in IAF, the question of AFNHB being a private body is questionable. She furthermore added in the same regard that the modalities of IAF rules for employees in terms of membership of organisations is different from what is provided in the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in as much as the IAF rules under Chapter IV, Section 19 restrict any such membership without 2 the express sanction of the Central Government, thus implying that AFHNB could only have been constituted by appropriate government sanction.
In view of the foregoing proceedings of the hearing, Commission deems it appropriate to allow the CPIO to submit in writing his counter submissions for the points raised by the Appellant during the hearing. Accordingly, the Appeal is reserved for final decision contingent upon receiving relevant submissions from the CPIO.
Following are the FINAL PROCEEDINGS of 13.10.2016:
CPIO SUBMISSIONS reproduced in short below:
Commission has received the CPIO submissions vide his letter dated 28.09.2016.
CPIO has stated with respect to Query Nos. (a) to (c) of the RTI Application that the power and duties of AOA as ex-officio chairman are not laid down by IAF but are laid down by AFNHB and hence the sought information is not available at Air HQ. Further, with regard to Query nos. (d) & (e), he has stated that no documents pertaining to AFNHB are held at Air HQ. He has also submitted that the point raised by the Appellant regarding government sanction required for formation of AFNHB is additional information introduced at the stage of hearing/Second Appeal.
Decision Commission has heard the Appellant in detail and has carefully perused the submissions of the CPIO. It has been observed that the CPIO has not particularly rebutted the arguments raised by the Appellant in his submissions. CPIO has rather given a largely revised point-wise reply to the queries of the RTI Application in the context of the basic premise of the Appellant's contentions under reference.
It is adequately clarified that Commission is not adjudicating upon the status of AFNHB vis-a-vis the RTI Act in the present matter. Commission here is concerned with the question whether the information sought is held by IAF or not. Commission is also convinced with some of the arguments raised by the Appellant. A plain reading of the RTI Application reveals the fact that Appellant 3 has asked about the functionality of AOA as ex-officio chairman of AFNHB and norms set by IAF for discharge of these functions, categories of documents held by IAF pertaining to AFNHB.
In view of the facts of the present case, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:
Section 2(j)- "...."right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--..........."
Section 2(f)- "...."information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force..."
When the said two Sections are read together it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasised therefore that the Appellant has sought information from a public authority and not from AFNHB, therefore the contention of the CPIO that AFNHB is not a public authority will not apply to the merits of this case.
In as much as the submission of the CPIO is therefore concerned, Commission finds it appropriate to require the CPIO to file an affidavit stating that no information sought in the RTI Application pertaining to AFNHB is held by the IAF. CPIO should provide a copy of the said affidavit to the Appellant and the Commission within 30 days from the date of recipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy 4 (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 5