Reasons for non renewal of Airport entry pass were denied u/s 8(1)(a) - Appellant: her pass had not been renewed resulting into discontinuance of her service by her employer airline - CIC: respondent has avoided explaining why section 8(1)(a) invoked
9 Mar, 2014O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 2.3.2013 seeking reasons for non renewal of Airport entry pass. The CPIO denied the information on 26.3.2013 under section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act 2005.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed her appeal on 29.4.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA). No reply of the FAA is available on the file. The appellant approached the Commission on 13.8.2013 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing and stated that she had sought information regarding nonrenewal of her airport entry pass by the respondent. She stated that she was an employee of an airline from 2004 to 2009, but her pass had not been renewed by the competent authority in 2009 which resulted in discontinuance of her service by her employer airline.
4. By way of background, the appellant explained that earlier the entry passes were renewed after every two years, but from last two years these are being renewed every year. The appellant stated that the action by the respondent in not renewing her airport entry pass was thoughtless and irregular, which resulted in the loss of her job.
5. The respondent’s response is cryptic and has avoided explaining why has section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; been cited. It is clear that the respondent has failed to meet its obligations as a public authority under the RTI Act. It is conspicuous that the respondent has not provided the reasoning for its decision, and has also avoided the hearing.
6. The respondent did not participate in the hearing.
Decision
7. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant the information sought in her RTI application within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Ms. Manju v. International Airport, Amritsar in Decision No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000364/VS/05962