CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000103 Appellant : Shri R. N. Mishra Public Authority : Indian Air Force Date of hearing : 20.04.2010 Date of Decision : 20.04.2010 Facts
The matter is called for hearing today dated 20.04.2010. Appellant is not present
but is represented by Shri P.H. Mishra, JWO, posted at New Delhi. Nobody has,
however, appeared for the Indian Air Force.
2. I have carefully gone through the material on record and also heard Shri P.H.
Mishra. In the appeal memo dated 31.10.2009 filed before the Commission, the appellant
has alleged as under :-
“4.4 That the appellant having possession of his smart card and Identity card
happened to go on 26.4.2008 to CSD canteen IAF Bamrauli, Allahabad, to
purchase some grocery items. There he was badly assaulted, abused, humitated,
wrongly restrained, criminally intimidated, wrongfully confirmed, by an young
officer namely sqn Ldr R. Ghosh, who claimed to be officer-in-charge of the said
canteen. Such Acts of said officer was offence u/s 166, 339, 340, 341, 342, 349,
351, 352, 355, 504, 506 of Indian penal code 1860 and offence Under Section 45
and 71 of Air force Act 1950.”
3. He has filed a statutory complaint with the competent authority in this regard.
4. Vide RTI application dated 10.10.2008, the appellant had desired to know the
outcome of the statutory complaint. This was responded to by CPIO vide letter dated
27.2.2009 stating that the competent authority had considered his representation dated
30.4.2008 in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and found that the various
issues raised by him lacked substance and that his petition had been rejected accordingly.
5. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.4.2009 had directed the CPIO to
disclose the name of the competent authority who considered the appellant’s
representation dated 30.4.2008 and the date of rejection of the said representation etc.
However, the appellant’s request for additional information was rejected by AA.
6. During the hearing, Shri P.H. Mishra would request for adjournment in the matter.
He would also submit that in a communication sent to the appellant, the Air Force
authorities had informed the appellant that an Advocate is not a citizen of India and is,
therefore, not entitled for any information under the RTI Act.
7. I do not find any merit in Shri P.H. Mishra’s request for adjournment in as much
as the allegation of assault on the appellant, if true, is to be investigated either by the
police or by the Air Force authorities. The Commission has no role therein. Further, Shri
Mishra could not produce any document before the Commission wherein the appellant
was informed that an Advocate can not seek information under the RTI Act. It appears to
us that the matter in hand is in the nature of a grievance and does not squarely fall in the
ambit of RTI Act. In this view of the matter, the Commission is not in a position to give
any relief to the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
( M.L. Sharma )
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application
and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
Address of parties :
1. The Wing Commander & CPIO,
HQ CAC, Indian Air Force,
Bamrauli, Allahabad-12, UP.
2. Shri R.N. Mishra,
221/8K, Ganga Vihar Colony,