PIO transferred the RTI Application u/s 6(3) to DIAL while simultaneously maintaining that DIAL is not a public authority - CIC: The Ministry of Civil Aviation should be in a position to access the information from DIAL if it is not available with them

Information sought:

The Appellant sought information through 6 points regarding tariff chart for parking of cars at Terminal 2 Delhi Airport.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present in person.

Respondent: S.V. Ramana, US & CPIO, Min. of Civil Aviation, New Delhi, Sanjay Kumar and Arun Kumar, AAI, New Delhi present in person.

Appellant stated that till date he has not received the desired information and pointed out the absurdity in the reply dated 24.03.2017 provided by S.V. Ramana, US & CPIO that information is not available/maintained in AD section. He further stated that his RTI Application was referred to Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) under Section 6(3) of RTI Act even as the said CPIO has mentioned in the same letter that DIAL is not a public authority under RTI Act.

CPIO submitted that DIAL is a private authority and is entrusted with the responsibility of looking after all operational matters etc. of IGI Airport and therefore it is free to fix tariff as per Chapter XII of the DIAL Operation, Management and Development Agreement.

Decision

Commission takes grave exception to the fact that CPIO transferred the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act to DIAL while simultaneously maintaining that DIAL is not a public authority under RTI Act. As rightly pointed out by the Appellant, the said reply of the CPIO is indeed absurd. In other words, if DIAL is not a public authority under RTI Act, by implication Section 6(3) of the RTI Act has no applicability for the said authority, yet CPIO transferred the RTI Application only to seemingly mislead the Appellant. Commission admonishes the CPIO for his gross non-application of mind in dealing with the RTI Application.

Now, as regards the averment of the CPIO that information pertains to DIAL which is not a pubic authority, it is adequately clarified that in the present matter, Commission is not adjudicating upon the status of DIAL vis-a-vis the RTI Act. In view of the facts of the present case, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; and 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:

Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; - “....“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to—...........”

Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; - “....“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force...”

Upon a conjoint reading of the two Sections, it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasized therefore that even if CPIO’s claim of DIAL not being a public authority is conceded with, fact remains that the Appellant has sought information from a public authority and not from DIAL, therefore the contention of the CPIO that DIAL is not a public authority will not apply to the merits of this case.

Appellant has merely sought to know the tariff and rules applicable for issue of parking ticket as on the date of RTI Application at Terminal 2 Delhi Airport. Now, if CPIO maintains that DIAL looks after all operational matters of IGI Airport, fact remains that the Ministry of Civil Aviation has regulatory powers over all airports in India. In this context, Ministry of Civil Aviation should be in a position to access the information from DIAL if the same is not available with their office.

In view of the aforesaid, CPIO is directed to provide the information sought in the RTI Application in a point-wise manner to the Appellant after accessing the same from DIAL. The said direction should be complied within 15 days of the receipt of this order and information to be provided in compliance of this order will be free of cost and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Divya Prakash Sinha

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ashok Golas v. CPIO, ED(CA & CS) & Central Nodal Officer(RTI), Ministry of Civil Aviation, Airports Authority of India (AA) in File No: CIC/MOCAV/A/2017/146842/SD, Date of Decision : 11/03/2019