Travel details of two policemen taking an accused with them – PIO denied u/s 8(1)(d) & (j) – CIC: information sought is related to the official travel of two policemen; provide the factual details of their travel on the date mentioned in RTI application
1. The Appellant through his RTI application dated 21.09.2012 sought following information:
“1. Certified list of passengers mentioning names of Vikas S/o Shri Mahender ASI Desh Raj Dahiya, and ASI Suraj Bhan who traveled by domestic flight from Mumbai to Delhi on 11062011 between 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
2. Certified number of flights on 11062011 between 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. mentioning the plane by which the aforesaid passengers traveled from Mumbai to Delhi on 11062011.
3. Certified copies of AirTickets of Vikas S/o Shri Mahender, ASI Desh Raj Dahiya and ASI Suraj Bhan who boarded the domestic flight from Mumbai to Delhi on 11062011 between 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. taken.”
2. The CPIO vide his letter dated 05.10.2012 denied the disclosure of information in respect of travel details of Shri Desh Raj Dahiya, ASI and Shri Suraj Bhan, ASI citing exemption under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. As for the travel information in respect of Shri Vikas, the CPIO stated that as per the list of passenger who traveled on Air India flights operated from 0600 hrs. to 0900 hrs. from Mumbai to Delhi on 11.06.2011, the name Viksas does not appear. The CPIO also denied the list of passenger manifest u/s c of the RTI Act.
3. Being aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal dated 22.10.2012 before the Appellate Authority which the Appellate Authority decided vide his order dated 31.10.2012 upholding the CPIO’s view. He also added that information in question attracts exemption under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.
4. The Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal before the Commission challenging the denial of information by the Respondents.
5. In his present appeal, the Appellant has, interalia, stated as follows:
“It is certainly stated that ASI Desh Raj Dahiya and ASI Suraj Bhan have traveled along with a person, it may not be Vikas S/O Shri Mahender Singh, but with changed name, that has not been named in the Air Ticket and list of passengers. Both the ASIs have fraudulently and forcibly taken away that person with them from Mumbai to Delhi on 11.06.2011 and shown him arrested in a village u/s 302 of IPC and the changed name person who is Vikas is in jail under trial in the Sessions Judge Court , Bhiwani.”
6. During the hearing, the Respondents state that the Appellant has not brought the above facts to their notice earlier. He has mentioned them only in the present appeal before the Commission.
7. Having heard the submissions and perused the records, the Commission observes that the information sought by the Appellant here is related to the official travel of two policemen allegedly taking an accused with them and that, therefore, it (information) cannot be completely denied to him. The Appellant here deserves to be provided with the factual information with regard to the travel details of Shri Deshraj Dahiya, ASI and Shri Suraj Bhan, ASI and regarding the person who had actually traveled with the above two policemen on the date mentioned in his RTI application. The CPIO is, therefore, hereby directed to provide the factual information to the Appellant on the present matter as per the records available with the public authority.
Time within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
Citation: Shri M.C. Sharma v. Air India in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000434