Central Information Commission Ramshiromani Mishra vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. on 28 March, 2023 क य सुचना आयोग CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION बाबा गंगनाथ माग Baba Gangnath Marg मु नरका, नई द ल 110067 Munirka, New Delhi110067 File no.: CIC/HALTD/A/2022/114589 In the matter of Ramshiromani Mishra ... Appellant VS CPIO Hindustam Aeronautics Ltd. Avionics Division, PO: Korwa, Distt. Amethi, U.P. 227412 ... Respondent RTI application filed on : 28/10/2021 CPIO replied on : 16/11/2021 First appeal filed on : 01/01/2022 First Appellate Authority order : 28/01/2022 Second Appeal filed on : 19/03/2022 Date of Hearing : 28/03/2023 Date of Decision : 28/03/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Not present Respondent: S.S Mishra, DGM (Design) and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought: The Appellant has sought the following information: 1. Whether CCTV Cameras have been installed in the Medical Deptt and at Gate No.2? Whether both the Cameras are in working condition? 2. Provide duty timings of Mr. Sidheshmani Tiwari, Clerk, Medical Deptt. 3. On Sept 14, 28 and 29, 2021, Mr. Tiwari had taken exit from the Gate No.2 at 1300 Hours. Provide the time for return entry of Mr. Tiwari for the said dates as per CCTV Camera record. 1 4. And other related information. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite notice sent vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED365152723IN. The CPIO reiterated the reply dated 16.11.2021. He also reiterated the written submissions dated 27.03.2023 through which he submitted that HAL is a defence PSU and the same is declared as "Prohibited Place" under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Hence, the disclosure of information relating to CCTV footage of any place within HAL Korwa premises may compromise the security of the defence installation cannot be provided under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act. Further, no larger public interest is involved in disclosure of the requested information. He also submitted that the grounds of appeal have not been mentioned by the appellant in the appeal. He also submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant appears to be motivated by personal dispute against Shri Siddhesh Mani Tiwari. Observations: Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 16.11.2021 replied to the appellant and stated in respect of points no. 14 that in the Medical department there is no CCTV installed. In respect of point no. 5 it was stated that the employee was not given any movement order. The same reply was reiterated by the FAA. For the rest of the CCTV details the CPIO stated that due to security issues information cannot be given. The information sought is anyway related to a third party and personal in nature, hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Decision: In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for providing any relief to the appellant. The appeal is disposed if accordingly. Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) 2 Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3