Details of air-tickets of Kingfisher Airlines - PIO: airlines have obligation to provide personal information of passengers to DGCA - CIC: respondent are supposed to provide only that information which is held by or under the control of public authority
1. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 12.6.2012 sought details of air-tickets of Kingfisher Airlines/Kingfisher Red of Flight No. IT 3633 bearing seat Nos. 18A, 19A, 20C, 05F dated 3.2.2010 and Flight No. IT 3634 bearing seat Nos. 17C, 17E, 18A, 18B, 18C dated 6.2.2010, including name of passengers, when the tickets were purchased, have they travelled on scheduled date and time, address for correspondence of the travelers and how much fare was charged from the passengers. The CPIO vide his letter No. 23-05/2010-AED dated 22.6.2012 informed the appellant that there are no regulations issued by the DGCA under which the airlines are required to provide such information to DGCA.
2. Aggrieved with reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 10.7.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. 23-05/2010-AED dated 23.7.2012 held that the appellant has sought information regarding the name of passengers, their addresses, fare charged, date of purchase of tickets and whether they actually flew or not in the aforementioned flights on 3rd and 6th February. The FAA informed the appellant that the DGCA has no information and there are no rules issued in this regard.
3. During the hearing the CPIO states that there are no regulations issued by DGCA under the provisions of which airlines have obligation to provide personal information of passengers to DGCA such as name of passengers, date of purchase of tickets, their travel plan, their address and payment made by them. As such, information sought by the appellant is not available with DGCA.
4. The Commission is of the view that under the RTI Act the respondent are supposed to provide only that information which is held by or under the control of the public authority. As the information sought for by the appellant is not maintained or required to be maintained by the respondent, the Commission finds no reason to interfere with the replies of the respondent. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
Citation: Shri P. Naveen Babi v. Directorate General of Civil Aviation in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/0003592