Shri Arvind R. Padwal Vs Indian Airlines Ltd. - Decision - Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00322 & 324 (2007) INCIComm 110 (19 January 2007)

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 33654
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shri Arvind R. Padwal Vs Indian Airlines Ltd. - Decision - Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00322 & 324 [2007] INCIComm 110 (19 January 2007) Central Information Commission

No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00322 & 324 Dated: 19 January 2007

Name of the Appellant

Shri Arvind R. Padwal

30/1367/1368 Panch Pushpa CHS Ltd., Sardar Nagar III Sion, Koliwada Mumbai-400022

Name of the Public Authority : Indian Airlines Ltd.


Two appeals as detailed below were filed by Shri Arvind R. Padwal against the Indian Airlines Ltd. These two appeals were taken together for hearing at the Commission, as the issues involved were identical.

2. The case was fixed for hearing on 18 January 2007.

3. The bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter.

4. Shri Manet Paes, Dy. M.D, Shri S.K. Kundra, ED (CA) and Smt. Deepa Mahajan, GM (Per.), Mumbai, represented the Respondents.

5. The Appellant, Shri Arvind R. Padwal, was neither present nor send any representative for the hearing.

6. The issues and the response of the Respondents against each are as under:

Appeal No. 322

7. Vide an application dated 16.3.2006 addressed to the PIO of the Indian Airlines Ltd., the Applicant wanted to know whether the provision of rule 7 of Maharashtra Welfare Officers (Duties, qualifications and conditions of service) was complied with by the Indian Airlines in respect to Welfare Offices at Mumbai. The PIO vide his reply dated 5.4.2006 rejected the application of the Applicant by resorting to Rule 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.


8. In the absence of the Appellant, the Commission heard the Respondents who stated that they had denied the information as their Legal Advisor stated that the information asked for was personal in nature only because it related to a single individual. This explanation was not acceptable to the Commission for the reason that the Appellant had asked whether the provisions of Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Welfare Officers (Duties, qualifications and conditions of service) was applicable to the Welfare Officer at Mumbai. It was obvious that all that the Appellant wanted was a `yes' nor `no' to his query and had not sought any details about the person concerned. The Commission directs the Respondents to give a suitable reply to the Appellant within 15 days of the issue of the order.

Appeal No. 324

9. Vide an application dated 4.4.2006 to the PIO of Indian Airlines Ltd., the Appellant wanted a certified copy of observations made by factory inspector in the inspection book for the new engineering complex factory for the period 2000 till date along with copies of replies to the Directorate. The PIO vide his reply dated 12.5.2006 refused to supply the information to the Applicant by resorting to Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the PIO of the reply and filed a first appeal with the first Appellate Authority. The first Appellate Authority concurred with the decision of the PIO and the Appellant moved a second appeal before the Commission.


10. As in the earlier case (case No. 322), the Respondents relying on the Legal advice sought took recourse to 8(j) of the RTI Act to deny the supply of certified copies of observations made by the Factory Inspector in the Inspection Report maintained under the Factories Act 1943 for the New Engineering Complex Factory.

11. In this case, keeping in view the interest of transparency, the Commission directs the Respondents to get in touch with the Appellant and ask him to come down to the office and see the relevant records for himself. The Commission also authorises the Appellant to get photocopies of the pages that he wants from this records, free of cost subject to a limit of 25 pages. Since the Appellant was not present at the hearing, he is free to approach the Commission in case the Commission's orders are not complied with.

12. In both the cases, the Commission noticed that information was denied under Section 8(j) of the RTI-Act. The Respondents were told that there was no rule 8(j) of the RTI-Act but 8(i)(j) and that they should be more careful in future when citing the provisions of the Act.

13. The Commission ordered accordingly.

Sd/- (O.P. Kejariwal) Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

Sd/- (Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Assistant Registrar


1. Shri Arvind R. Padwal, 30/1367/1368, Panch Pushpa, CHS Ltd, Sardar Nagar III, Sion, Koliwada, Mumbai-400022.

2. Capt. N.R. Phatak, Offg. Executive Director (WR) & PIO, Indian Airlines, Santacruz Airport, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400099.

3. Shri Manet Paes, Appellate Authority, Indian Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110001.

4. Officer Incharge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC