Central Information Commission
Pankaj Arora vs Airports Authority Of India on 7 August, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/AAOIN/A/2017/135057
In the matter of:
Pankaj Arora
...Appellant
Vs.
The CPIO & Director
Airport Authority of India, SVP
International Airport, Ahmedabad - 380003. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 07.02.2017
CPIO reply : 14.03.2017
First Appeal : 22.03.2017
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 16.05.2017
Date of hearing : 25.07.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 07.02.2017 sought information on fourteen points as under:
1. Names of parties who had surrendered their commercial contracts under bail-out package.
2. Copies of surrender notices given to bailed-out parties.
3. Details of monthly license fees paid by such parties before surrendering the contracts.
4. Names of contractors and contracts who had negotiated after the completion of surrender period along with details about the negotiated monthly fees.
5. Other related information.1
The CPIO replied on 14.03.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 22.03.217. 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 16.05.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri M.K. Gangal,
Director cum APIO,
Airport Authority of India
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 14.03.2017. He further submitted that first appellate authority had also provided the reply on 12.06.2017. He further submitted that they had also complied the order of the first appellate authority on 07.07.2017. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he had not received the reply dated 07.07.2017 from the respondent authority concerned.
The respondent PIO is directed to resend the reply dated 07.07.2017 within 07 days of the receipt of this order to the appellant by speed post keeping the postal tracking number as record. The despatch details are to be submitted to the Commission within 07 more days thereafter.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the sought for information on point no. a & l is a third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence the same cannot be provided. Information on later part of point no. d i.e. the negotiated monthly license fee should be provided and rest of the information on this point cannot be disclosed as it is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On point nos. f & i of the above 2 stated RTI application, information can be provided. On point no. g, details about the H1 amount can be provided, however, names of H1 contractors cannot be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On point no. k, dates on which the differential amount had been paid and details about the unpaid amount can be provided without disclosing the names of the contractors/parties involved therein. On point no. m, action taken against the parties who did not pay the differential amount is to be provided without disclosing the name of any of the parties. On point no. n, if there is any office order regarding the information sought on this point, the same should be provided to the appellant.
The Commission also observed that information on point nos. b, c, e, h and j was already provided which is found to be just and proper.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case in regard to some points contained in the said RTI application, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised point wise reply as discussed during the hearing on point no d, f, g, i, k, m & n complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e- mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The 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, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3