Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01562-SM dated 3.12.2007.
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 05.11.2008
Appellant - Shri G.P. Kashyap
Respondents - Air Head Quarters, Ministry of Defence
Though the Appellant was not present even after the notice had been sent
the appeal was still heard because the following Respondents had attended the
hearing and the main question involved in the case was not denial of information
but supply of information considered inadequate by the Appellant. On behalf of
the Respondents, the following were present:-
1. Wg. Cdr. T. Sajan, CPIO, Air. HQ
2. Wg. Cdr. R. Mohanty, JMDS (MB)
3. Sqn. Ldr. G. Kaushik, Dy. JAG (Air)
4. Sqn. Ldr. V. Sridhar, CAPIO, Air HQ
The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in the Air Headquarters, Ministry
of Defence with a set of seven queries mostly revolving around the medical fitness
of Aircrew for various flying duties. The CPIO, in his reply dated 9.10.2007,
provided replies/information with which the Applicant was not satisfied. He
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority in the Air Headquarters. The
Appellate Authority, in his order dated 2.11.2007, decided the appeal and held
that the Appellant was seeking opinion/views of the authorities on certain
queries rather than information, and therefore, rejected the appeal. It is against
this order of the Appellate Authority that the Appellant has come before this
Commission in second appeal.
3. At the beginning of the hearing, the Respondents argued that many of the
queries made by the Appellant were not in the nature of information but in the
nature of seeking an opinion. They illustrated by referring to the following
queries:-
(i) Is it medically advisable to post an officer suffering from sinusitis and
rhinitis to highly humid areas with thick forest with multiple flowering trees? If
so, under what condition?
(ii) Is it medically advisable to post an officer suffering from Osteoarthritis to
highly humid area with hilly terrain? If so, under what condition?
5. They further argued that based on the existing policy in respect of medical
fitness for discharging flying duties by Aircrew, they had furnished all the
information that they possessed along with the copies of documents.
DECISION
6. After hearing their arguments and going through the appeal of the
Appellant, we find that the replies/information already provided appear
adequate. The Appellant has not given any ground or reason as to why he has
found these replies unsatisfactory or inadequate or incomplete.
7. Since the information sought has been provided to the extent it is held and
that some of the information sought clearly appears to be in the nature of seeking
opinion of the Public Authority, we do not see any merit in entertaining the
appeal. The appeal is, thus, rejected.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar