Central Information Commission
Craig Janong vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 31 May, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NHAIN/A/2024/614959
Shri Craig Janong ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Highways Authority of India ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025
Date of Decision : 29.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.02.2024
PIO replied on : 30.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 30.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 03.04.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 10.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"Certified copies of the following information (notesheets, communications, OMs, tenders-related documents, etc.) is requested w.r.t. the toll gate at Pahammawlein on the highway connecting Shillong and Guwahati:
1. the basis on which approval for the rates of toll and penalties were accorded,
2. the basis on which approval for the idea of the Fastag was accorded and the revenue earned by the government from the Fastag,
3. the tender process by which and the basis on which approval for the consortium in charge of collecting the toll was accorded,
4. the amount of toll and penalty collected till date for each class of vehicles,
5. the agreement with the consortium,
6. the procedure for maintaining the highway,
7. the option available to citizens to claim for damages caused by a faulty highway,
8. the amount expected to be recovered before the toll gate is closed,
9. the amount of expenditure incurred in constructing the toll gate,
10. the general rules relating to toll gates and their functioning and purpose. Provisions of Section 10 may be invoked in cases claimed to be partially exempt. The information sought for may kindly be furnished through email only.Page 1 of 3
After receipt of information under this application, I intend to carry out an actual inspection of records and obtain certified photocopies of records identified by me during the inspection. I may be permitted such inspection."
The CPIO, Project Director vide letter dated 30.03.2024 replied as under:-
"1. NHAI is levying user fee in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules 2008 and its 1 amendments and the user fee rate is mentioned on NHAI https://tis.nhai.gov.in/portal.
2. As per Direction from MoRT&H for 100% digital toll Payment via FASTag w.e.f 1st December, 2019.
3. Tender related information not held with this office.
4. Total amount collection till date is 248.49 Cr and please define which type of penalty is asked. -
5. The Contract Agreement period for One year from 23.11.2023) 08:00:00) to 23.11.2024(08:08:00) is available in this office.
6. Maintenance of the highway is in the scope of Concessionaire.
7. Desired information not held with this office.
8. It is BOT Annuity Project.
9. Construction of the toll gate is in the scope of Concessionaire.
10. Rule related to toll plaza is mentioned in National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 and its amendments which is mentioned on the website:- https://morth.nic.in/toll
11. Desired information not held with this office"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 03.04.2024 stated as under:-
"As informed by the PD, PIU Shillong, the required information has already been submitted. Copy enclosed."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A detailed point wise written submission dated 22.05.2025 has been received from CPIO as under:
1. As per the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, toll is levied uniformly and rates are notified by the competent authority. This is publicly available on the NHAI TIS portal. No specific interpretation or internal reasoning is required to be provided under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
2. Fastag implementation was mandated by MoRT&H notification, effective 01.12.2019. Since no document was sought, general policy implementation information was shared.
3. Tender documents are not held by PIU Shillong. The tendering process is done as per extant NHAI policies. Since no specific document was sought, no information was shared
4. Total amount of Toll collection till that date of Rs. 248.49 Cr. was provided.
Class-wise breakdown of penalties is not maintained in this office in compiled format. As per the provisions of the act the public authority is Page 2 of 3 required to provide only existing and available information; they are not obligated to compile or create new information in the desired format. Etc. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Heard through audio conference Respondent: Shri Anand Singh Chauhan - Project Director, NHAI, Shillong was present during hearing through video conference. The Appellant was heard through audio conference and stated that though he had received information, he was not satisfied with the same since supporting documents had not been provided by the Respondent. The Respondent reiterated contents from the PIO's reply stating that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information available on record with the public authority and defined as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant. The Respondent present during hearing is hereby directed to furnish a copy of the written submission dated 22.05.2025 to the Appellant, within a week of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard within one week thereafter. Since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)