Appellant sought CCTV footage of airport on 20.12.2011 to prove his presence at airport as defense in a case - PIO denied information u/s 24(1) as CISF is exempt from RTI - CIC: information is not available as CCTV footage is overwritten after 30 days
Decision Dated 06.05.2016
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2016/17.03.2016/ 06.05.2016
1. Dr. Pramod Narhari Manjrekar filed an application dated 19.09.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o the DIG, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), seeking CCTV footage of his entry into the airport on 20.12.2011 to board the Jet Airways flight scheduled from Mumbai to Ahmedabad at 16:15 hours, in order to prove his presence in the airport on that day as he was wrongly implicated in a case. He required the footage from 15:00 hrs to 16:45 hrs.
2. The appellant filed second appeal on 22.08.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO and the FAA have wrongly denied the information sought by him under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him.
Hearing on 09.02.2016:
3. The appellant Shri Dr. Pramod Narhari Manjrekar and the respondent were not present despite notice.
4. The Commission observes that Smt. Reena Manjrekar W/o the appellant vide an email dated 08.02.2016 has requested the Commission to grant an adjournment as the appellant is in the jail and the required formalities for presenting the appellant before the Commission could not be completed in time.
5. The Commission concedes to the request of Smt. Meena Manjrekar and accordingly adjourns the matter to 17.03.2016 at 10:30 am.
6. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Hearing on 17.03.2016
7. The appellant Shri Pramod Narhari Manjrekar was not present. The respondent Shri A.K. Mohanka, Sr. Commandant, CISF attended the hearing through video conferencing.
8. The respondent submitted that as per the BCAS circular, CCTV footage is stored only for 30 days. Hence, the information sought is not available with the respondent and, therefore, cannot be provided.
9. The Commission observes that Smt. Reena Manjrekar W/o the appellant vide an email dated 16.03.2016 has requested the Commission to grant an adjournment as the appellant is in the jail and the court concerned will hear the matter for interim bail on 18.03.2016. In view of that, the Commission adjourns the matter to 27.04.2016 at 1:00 PM.
10. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
11. The hearing scheduled for 27.04.2016 was adjourned to 06.05.2016 at 1:00 pm due to administrative reason.
Hearing on 06.05.2016:
12. The appellant Dr. Pramod Narhari Manjrekar and the respondent Shri S.K. Mohanka, Senior Commandant, CISF attended the hearing through video conferencing.
13. The appellant submitted that he had sought the CCTV footage for 28.12.2011 from 15:00 hours to 16:45 hours of the Mumbai Airport and also boarding pass of the flight in which he was brought from Mumbai to Ahmedabad, which has not been provided to the appellant.
14. The respondent submitted that the CISF is exempted from the provision of the RTI Act as per Section 24 (1) of the Act. Nonetheless, the respondent submitted that the CCTV footage as sought by the appellant is not maintained with the CISF and the same is maintained with the Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), which works in association with the GVK which is a Public Private Partnership firm. The respondent further submitted that the CCTV footage is maintained for only thirty days after which the same is overwritten. Since, the information sought the appellant pertains to the year 2011, the same is not available and hence, cannot be provided. With regard to the boarding pass as sought by the appellant, the respondent submitted that CISF has nothing to do with the boarding passes, it is, the flight operator and the passenger who keep their respective portions of the boarding pass.
15. The Commission after hearing both the parties observes that the information sought by the appellant is not available with the CISF. Moreover, CISF is not the holder of the information and is entrusted only for providing security cover at the Airport. Thus, the information sought cannot be provided to the appellant.
16. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
17. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Dr. Pramod Narhari Manjrekar v. Central Industrial Security Force in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/002732/SB