Policy regarding import of drones - PIO denied the information claiming applicant is seeking clarification and not seeking information as defined u/s 2(f) - FAA: It is personal information of third party exempt u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: No deliberate denial
17 Jun, 2024
CIC/DGOFT/C/2023/602159
CIC/DGOFT/A/2023/603552
The above-mentioned Appeal and Complaint have been clubbed together for decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications, hence are being disposed of through a common order.
Information sought:
The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25-10-2022 seeking the following information:
“As per DGFT Notification 54/2015-2020 dated 09.02.2022 Revised Policy Condition No. 03 under section (i) Import of drones by Government entitles, educational institutions recognized by central or state government, government recognized R&D entities and drone manufacturers for R&D purpose shall be allowed in CBU, SKD or CKD form subject to import authorisation issued by DGFT in consultation with concerned line ministries.
DGFT in its Exim Facilitation Committee (EFC) meeting No. 06/AM23 held on date 21.09.2022 for Import of Restricted Items has approved application of Ideaforge Technology Pvt Ltd for import of restricted item 04 nos. of DJI Matrice 30T M30T Drone.
In respect to the approval of application of ideaforge Technology Pvt Ltd for import of restricted items, we wish to seek response to the following questions:
Question 1. On what grounds has IDEAFORGE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD applied for import of 4 no’s of DJI Matrice 30T M3OT Drone vide their application number HQRXIMLAPPLY00000982AM23 (serial no. 126) dated 03.08.2022?
Provide a copy of the application made by IDEAFORGE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD along with all the documents annexed with the application till date.
Question 2. What were the recommendations sent by M/o Civil Aviation in their email dated 21.09.2022 to DGFT regarding the approval of application of restricted items by IDEAFORGE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD? Provide a copy of the email and all the communications made by DGFT with M/o Civil Aviation relating to the import application by IDEAFORGE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD.
Question 3. What were the conditions mentioned in the M/o Civil Aviation email dated 21.09.2022 relating to the import of restricted items by IDEAFORGE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD? Provide and copy of the same.
Question 4. On what grounds the application to import prohibited items 4 nos. of DJI Matrice 30T M3OT Drone (DJI-SA) by IDEAFORGE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD dated 03.08.2022 was approved by DGFT? Provide a copy of the video/audio recording of the meeting held in which the said application was approved by DGFT.
Question 5. What are the conditions that have been imposed on IDEAFORGE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD for the said import of restricted items? Provide a copy of any further communication that DGFT has made with IDEAFORGE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD relating to the said import of restricted items.”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant/appellant on 27-10-2022 stating as under:
“The RTI application is seeking clarification/posing query and not seeking information as defined under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the same is not classified as Information and beyond the purview of RTI Act. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.”
Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29-10-2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant/appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Md. Moin Afaque, Deputy DGFT & FAA, Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, FAA, Shri Jaykeshav Kumar, CPIO, all present in person.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and submitted that ab-initio they have informed the Appellant/Complainant that “The RTI application is seeking clarification/posing query and not seeking information as defined under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the same is not classified as Information and beyond the purview of RTI Act”.
However, at the stage of first appeal, the FAA vide its order dated 25.09.2023 had informed the Appellant/Complainant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Respondent have informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant/Complainant on his above-mentioned RTI application vide letter dated 25.09.2023.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
“61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed....”
Moreover, the Appellant/Complainant did not avail of the opportunity to plead his case or contest CPIO’s submission. In view of this, no intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The above-mentioned second appeal and the complaint are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Pratik Nishar v. Directorate General of Foreign Trade, CIC/DGOFT/C/2023/602159 + /603552; Date of Decision: 20-03-2024