9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding the order of the Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority of the appellant Air India refusing to furnish the information sought by the respondent under the provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground of the same being exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the said Act. 2. The respondent had vide application dated 17th November, 2008 sought the following information: 1. Were free complimentary air tickets, by whatever name called, issued by the erstwhile Air India Limited during the period 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2006. 2. In case answer to Question No.1 is affirmative, then the number of such tickets issued during the period 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2006 and who authorized/sanctioned these air tickets? Wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies given to other similar queries, the respondent approached the First Appellate Authority. Under the direction of the First Appellate Authority, the Information Officer of the appellant Air India responded as under: 1) Like all other airlines complimentary tickets are given by Air India for commercial Interest and to encourage and promote travel on our flights and to help in image building of the airline. 2) Approx. 1200 complimentary tickets were issued in 2006 by erstwhile Air India. The number of tickets allocated to the regions are authorized by the Commercial Director. 3) The disclosure of names of persons to whom such tickets were issued would be detrimental to the commercial interests of the company considering the fierc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. While upholding the right of the appellant Air India to, in the course of its operations and for good reasons issue complementary tickets for promotion of its commercial interest, it was held that there is no reason to be secretive about the persons to whom such complementary tickets are issued. It was further held that the appellant had been unable to explain as to how the disclosure of the identity of these persons would harm the commercial interest of the appellant. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the appellant Air India directed to disclose the names of the persons to whom complementary tickets were issued in the year 2006. 6. Notice of this appeal was issued. Vide order dated 14th May, 2012, the appellant was direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party‟ but without any pedestal whatsoever. Though the CIC had directed the appellant to furnish to the respondent the rules regarding issuances of such complementary tickets and the basis thereof but the appellant has not placed before us any such rules showing that such complementary tickets are to be given only to those who help the appellant in advancing its business interest. What we have thus before us is a bold plea without anything more to show that the information as to particulars of beneficiary of complementary tickets from the appellant is of commercial confidence to the appellant. 9. The R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closure brought about by the Act. Naturally, the exemption cannot be allowed merely on the ground thereof being raised. It is for the public authority claiming exemption to lay foundation, of the information falling in one of the exempted categories. We are afraid, the appellant has not laid any such foundation. Even in the list handed over to us, there is nothing to show that there is any confidentiality attached thereto. In fact, recognizing some of the names in the list we ourselves are curious to know the reasons for the appellant to have bestowed largesse of complimentary tickets on them. Even otherwise we find the plea raised by the appellant, of Section 8(1) (d), to be a bogey. Though the appellant, for several decades enjoyed a mono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en otherwise it is not disclosed as to what monetary value the said 1200 tickets represent. The question is not of whether the issuance of complementary tickets without any reason is of a small or of a large amount. The public funds even of a small amount cannot be allowed to be wasted and no public official, as the employees , officers of the appellant are, are authorized to meet/dole out personal favour at the cost of public funds. 12. We are therefore in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the information sought is not exempted under Section 8(1) (d) of the Act. 13. Though the appellant has also sought to aver that the names of the beneficiaries of such complementary tickets cannot be disclosed without their consent but we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
