Central Information CommissionMr.Shiv Kant Pandey vs Ministry Of Defence on 14 August, 2012CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
               Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


                       File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/000923

Appellant                           :         P H Mishra

Respondent               :          Indian Air Force

Date of hearing           :         14.8.2012

Date of decision          :         14.8.2012

FACTSHeard today dated 14.8.2012. Appellant not present. The
IAF is represented by Wg. Cdr. R. A. Kumar and Wg. Cdr. Sunit Tripathi.2.                        The matter, in short, is that the appellant is a serving JWO
in the IAF. Vide RTI application dated 14.6.2011, he had sought information on
06 paras.       The CPIO had provided information on paras 01, 04 & 05.
Information regarding para 06 could not provided as the authority letter under
reference did not exists on record. However, information was denied on paras
02 & 03 of the RTI applicationu/s 8 (1)of the RTI Act. These paras are
reproduced below:-"(ii) Details of authorized vacancy of warrants rank JWO, WO and MWO
           of Rad / Fit trade since year 2003 to 2011.(ii) Details of authorized establishment of warrants rank JWO, WO and
           MWO of Rad/ Fit trade since year 2003 to 2011."3.                        In the detailed appeal memo filed before this Commission
the appellant has challenged invocation ofsection 8 (1) (a)in this matter. Para
6.4 of his representation is extracted below:-"6.4   Because the "information" as sought by appellant are "record" and the
            appellant has right to get the sameu/s 3r/w 6, r/w 7 ofRTI Actandu/s
            4 (i) (b) (ix)of RTI Act it is duty of respondent to publish availability
            of human resources and it cannot be termed as confidential in any
            manner. Hence contention in para 4 (d) of impugned order dated
            05.12.2011 is misconceived."4.                    Suffice to say that IAF is a very sensitive defence
   organisation. It is not safe to put in public domain the strength of IAF in various
   ranks, including the technical cadre. The provisions ofsection 4 (1) (b) (ix)relied upon by the appellant have to be balanced with the security interests of the
   nation.      I am of the opinion that security interests of the nation will take
   precedence over the provisions ofsection 4 (1) (b) (ix)of the RTI Act. Viewed
   thus, denial of information by the CPIO appears to be justified. In the facts and
   circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.Sd/-(M.L. Sharma)
                                                 Central 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.(K L Das)
Dy. Registrar

Address of parties1.The Wing Commander & CPIO
   Air HQ Vayu Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
   New Delhi-1101062.      Shri P H Mishra
   Radar Lab, 15 Brd, Air Force Station,
   Wadsar Via Kalol, Gandhi Nagar-382721