Central Information Commission
Mrsatish Kumarbiswal vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 10 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi110066
F. No. CIC/YA/A/2015/002837
CIC/YA/A/2015/901118
Date of Hearing : 10.05.2016
Date of Decision : 10.05.2016
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Satish Kumar Biswal
Jajpur (Odisha)
Respondent Shri Deep Sarangi, FAA
Shri Bansal, CPIO National Highways Authority of India Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.07.2014, 17.07.2014 PIO replied on : No reply First Appeal filed on : 23.10.2014, 31.10.2014 First Appellate Order on : No order passed 2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 16.03.2015, 02.09.2015
Since both the parties are same in the above mentioned appeals, these appeals are clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002837 Vide RTI application dated 17.07.2014, the appellant sought information regarding non compliance of concession agreement between NHAI and SJEPL for six laning of Chandikhole - Jagatpur - Bhubaneswar Section of NH5 in Orissa as BoT (toll) on DBFO pattern as per the following questionnaire:
1. Copy of authorisation letter for contract in respect of RKD.
2. Copies of the show cause notices/letter for irregularity in 6 laning work of NH5 from department/Independent Engineer & reply from SJEPL
3. Video Recording CD from beginning to till date
4. Copy of the complaint register containing public complaints.
The CPIO vide letter dated 19.08.2014 forwarded the RTI application to Project Director, NHAI for providing the information directly to the appellant.
The appellant states that the CPIO has not provided the complete information and even the reply from the FAA was received after considerable lapse of time without any reasonable explanation for such delay. He also pleads that even thought the Respondents possessed the information they did not provide the same to him. The respondent states that RTI was transferred to other section of Regional Office and Regional Office to access the information from concessionaire and independent engineer and to provide the same to appellant. In response both of them provided the same information which has already been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
After hearing both the parties and perusal of record the Commission finds that information as available on record has already been provided to the appellant.
CIC/YA/A/2015/901118 Vide RTI application dated 17.07.2014 the appellant through online RTI application dealing with the same subject matter of "noncompliance of concession agreement between NHAI and SJEPL for six laning of Chandikhole - Jagatpur - Bhubaneswar Section of NH5 in Orissa as BoT (toll) on DBFO pattern" sought to know some details about Lt. No. NHAI/NHDP V/CJB/BOT(TOLL)/2008/OR/5/ dated 29.04.2010 (LOA), viz. :
1. Article 45 - disclosure
2. Article 46 - redressal of public grievances openly violated
3. Concessionaire has failed to regulate traffic on the Project Highway.
The appellant states that the concessionaire are prominently displayed at each of the toll plazas and toll booths, public notices displaying the availability of specified documents and all documents data relating to safety of the project highway are also put up but the same are not followed. The purpose of the concessionaire has totally failed in regulating traffic on the project highway. He further states that he has made several complaints to the independent engineer/s but no improvement has so far been witnessed. The respondent states that this RTI application was filed online and could not be located and it was replied by the NHAI Hqrs. He further states that the appellant was requested to provide a copy of RTI application so that a reply could be sent. It has been stated that since the application was submitted by the applicant on grievance portal, the action taken report has also been given to him through the same grievance portal.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that information as available on record has already been provided to the appellant. No further orders are required in this case.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to: