Central Information Commission
Shruti Jain vs Director General Of Civil Aviation on 29 August, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/DGOCA/C/2022/651249
Shruti Jain ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation,
Aurobindo Marg, Opposite Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi-110003.
...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25.05.2022
CPIO replied on : 23.06.2022
First appeal filed on : 20.07.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 25.08.2022
Complaint received at CIC : 22.09.2022
Date of Hearing : 29.08.2023
Date of Decision : 29.08.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:
Ref to CAR Section 7, Series J, Part III with Subject line Duty Period, Flight Duty Period, Flight Time Limitations and Prescribed Rest Periods - Flight crew Engaged in Scheduled Air Transport Operations issued on 24 April 2019, effective 01 May 2019.
Kindly provide the scheme, as under Clause 4.1, for each scheduled operator as approved by DGCA .Page 1 of 5
• CPIO furnished reply, dated 23.06.2022, as under:
The information sought is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005.
• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed instant complaint.
• The FAA vide its order dated 25.08.2022 has held that reply of CPIO FSD was reviewed and advised him to provide the information in accordance with provision contained in section 11 (1) of RTI act 2005 The consent of operators (Third Party) was sought by CPIO for disclosure of information (FDTL Scheme), however they have denied disclosing the same. Therefore the information sought cannot be disclosed under section 11 (1) of RTI Act 2005 as under:
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 28.08.2023.
• Ms. Shruti Jain made an RTI request vide registration No. DGOCA/R/E/22/00263. dated 25.05.2022. and asked to provide FDTL (Flight Duty Time Limitations) scheme for each scheduled operators as approved by DGCA under Para 4.1 of CAR Section 7, Series J Part III (Annexure 1) • FDTL Scheme of Scheduled operators is a third party information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI act 2005 the reply was provided by undersigned through online RTI portal (Annexure•2) • Ms. Shruti Jain made First appeal vide RTI appeal registration No. DGOCA/A/E/22/00064, dated 20 July 2022 to First Appellate authority against the reply of the CPIO to RTI request vide registration no. DGOCAJR/E/22/00283. dated 25 May 2022 on ground of "refused access to information requested° ( Annexure 3 ) • The reply of CPIO (FSD) was reviewed by First Appellate Authority and CPIO•FSD was advised to provide the information in accordance with provision of Section 11 (1) of RTI act 2005. The consent of operators was sought to disclose of information (FDTL Scheme) In accordance with Section 11 (1) of RTI act 2005 to the third party. However, as per the reply received from schedule operators.
they did not agree to share their FDTL Scheme with any third party.(Annexure 4) • The Appeal (RTI appeal registration no. DGOCA/R/FJ22/00064, dated 10 May 2022) was reviewed as per facts and reply received from operators and the same was disposed of by the First Appellate Authority vide DGCA letter no. DGCA-220371262022-FSD dated 25 August 2022. (Annexure 5) Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Complainant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant: Present Respondent: Mr. Chandramani Pandey (DGCA) Page 2 of 5 Complainant has submitted that she has not received the information. She further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the relevant information.
Upon the Commissions instance, the CPIO has submitted that FDTL Scheme of Scheduled operators is a third-party information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI act 2005. He further submitted that the reply of CPIO (FSD) was reviewed by First Appellate Authority and CPIO (FSD) was advised to provide the information in accordance with provision of Section 11 (1) of RTI act 2005. The consent of operators was sought to disclose of information (FDTL Scheme) In accordance with Section 11 (1) of RTI act 2005 to the third party. However, as per the reply received from schedule operators.
they did not agree to share their FDTL Scheme with any third party. He further affirmed that he would abide by the order of the Commission.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the complainant , free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 Page 3 of 5 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaints u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Information Commissioner (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Page 4 of 5
Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 5 of 5