Information about gears is confidential information related to the Ministry of Defence which cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act; Technical details wrt drawings can only be shared to Order Placing Authority /their authorized vendors - CIC: Denial upheld

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed RTI application dated 22.10.2023 an (offline) seeking the following information:

“1 information sought about matching of 3 bevel gears, two of 2.75 module and one of 3 module, can they match?

2 Information sought about OD of bevel gear 2.75 module, 14 teeth and od of beael gear 14 teeth, 3.0 module”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.12.2023 stating as under:

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2024. The FAA order is not on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Shishpal Singh Yadav, APIO present through Video Conference.

5. The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the which states as “it is intimated that technical details wrt drawings can only be shared to Order Placing Authority or their authorized vendors”.

Decision:

6. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of satisfactory reply by the PIO. The Commission observes that requisite information/factual position in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant as per his RTI application and as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

7. The Commission observes that the information sought by the Appellant is confidential information related to the Ministry of Defence and the same cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.

8. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.

9. Further, the Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.

10. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: S V Mohindra v. Ministry of Defence Controllerate Of Quality Assurance, CIC/DODEF/A/2024/101856; Date of Decision : 30.04.2025