Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Madan Lal Sharma vs Ministry Of Defence on 24 April, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri Madan Lal Sharma vs Ministry Of Defence on 24 April, 2009
                           Central Information Commission
                Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01676-SM dated 31.12.2006
                  Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)

                                                              Dated: 24 April 2009

Appellant                :   Shri Madan Lal Sharma

Respondent               :   Ministry of Defence

The Appellant was present in person.

On behalf of the Respondent, Wg. Cdr. R.N. Magadum, CPIO, was present.

The brief facts of the case are as under.

2. The Appellant had, in his application dated 31 December 2006, requested
the CPIO for information regarding the action taken on his application on non-
payment of terminal benefits. The CPIO of the Ministry of Defence transferred his
application to the CPIO in the Air Headquarters on 15 January 2007 who, in turn,
transferred it to the CPIO, SWAC. The CPIO, SWAC further transferred the
application to the CPIO 33 Wing AF. In the meanwhile, the Appellant had already
sent a reminder dated 5 April 2007 to the CPIO, 33 Wing AF. Finally, that CPIO
replied to the Appellant on 22 April 2007, that is, nearly 4 months after he had
sent his application and denied the information on the ground that the PSI being a
welfare venture of the IAF, it did not fall under the definition of Public Authority,
as defined in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and, therefore, no
information regarding this could be provided to the Appellant. Not having received
the information from the CPIO in time, he had filed an appeal before the first
Appellate Authority, which that Authority decided in his order dated 28 May 2007.
The first Appellate Authority stated that the information sought by him had
already been communicated to him in the past in two different communications
dated 24 October 2006 and 8 December 2006 sent by the Officer In-charge of the
Service Institute and he gave a gist of the information already provided through
those two communications and disposed off his appeal. The Appellant has come to
the CIC in Second Appeal against this order of the first Appellate Authority.

3. During the hearing, both the parties were present and made their
submissions. We carefully considered the appeal memo, written comments sent by

CIC/WB/A/2007/01676-SM
the Respondent and the rejoinder sent by the Appellant on those written
comments. We also considered the submissions made by both the parties. We find
that in spite of so many communications, the Appellant has not yet been told what
he had actually sought to know. In his application dated 31 December 2006, the
Appellant had wanted to know the action taken on his two grievance petitions
addressed to the Directorate of Public Grievances which had been subsequently
transferred to the Ministry of Defence. It is noted that the CPIO had stated that PSI
could not be deemed to be a Public Authority within the meaning of the expression
as defined under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and that no information
regarding the PSI could be given. The fact that the first Appellate Authority
entertained an appeal against this reply and provided information about the
various benefits given to the Appellant shows that the Public Authority considers
the PSI to be under its administrative control. The PSI is exclusively meant to serve
the welfare needs of the Air Force Personnel in a particular Station and is managed
by the authorities of the Unit concerned. We, therefore, consider it appropriate
that the relevant CPIO of a particular Air Force Unit is responsible to provide
information regarding the PSI of that particular Unit.

4. In view of the above, we direct the CPIO of the Directorate of Public
Grievances, Ministry of Defence to inform the Appellant within 10 working days
from the receipt of this order as to what action had been taken on the two
applications/representations which the Appellant had sent to that Directorate on 5
October and 6 November 2006.

5. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(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.

(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar

CIC/WB/A/2007/01676-SM
CIC/WB/A/2007/01676-SM