Central Information Commission
Sanjay Dalal vs Ut Of Dadra And Nagar Haveli And Daman And ... on 28 March, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DNHDU/C/2023/605082 & CIC/DNHDU/A/2023/631761
Sanjay Dalal ...Complainant/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Executive Engineer,
Works Division - I,
Public Works Department,
Moti Daman - 396220 ....प्रनिवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27-03-2024
Date of Decision : 28-03-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
1. CIC/DNHDU/C/2023/605082
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09-11-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27-01-2023
Information sought:
The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09-11-2022 seeking the following information:
"I am an affected person under Notice No. 3/91/LND-ACQ/2020-21/2159 dated 09/05/2022 and as affected person; I am seeking following information with Page 1 of 6 reference to "Acquisition of land for widening of road from Nani Daman Char Rasta to Circuit House, Nani Daman (Part 2)":
(1) Certified copy of proposal received to widen and develop road received from Daman Municipal Council (2) Certified copy of map of proposed acquisition (Hard copy) (3) Certified copy of proposed acquisition (Soft copy in AutoCAD) (4) "Road from Nani Daman Char Rasta to Circuit House, Nani Daman" is neither mentioned as MDR nor ODR in Official Gazette No. PWD/SE/DMN/1294 dated 24/08/1994; Major District Roads (MDRs) are of 25 Mts. Width and Other District Roads (ODRs) are of 15 Mts. Width and all other roads are 12 Amy's. width. This road is Municipal Road.
Give certified copy of Gazette Notification that specifies this road as 15 Mts. With its classification."
No First Appeal is available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present.
Respondent: Shri Hitesh Dhuka, Executive Engineer & CPIO, attended the hearing.
The Complainant submitted that the Respondent has not provided any reply qua the instant RTI Application within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of RTI Act. He further reiterated the contents of his RTI Application. He added that PWD has no authority for acquisition of the averred road as the same comes under Daman Municipal Corporation.
The Respondent submitted that the then CPIO Shri Mukesh Chandra Gohil, Executive Engineer in-charge, who has now retired from the service did not provide any reply to the Complainant within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of RTI Act. He added that upon receiving the hearing notice from the Page 2 of 6 Commission, he has provided the information regarding the gazette notification to the Complainant vide letter dated 11.03.2024. He further submitted that their office was only an executing agency, and the acquisition of the road was done by the Revenue Department of the concerned State Government.
A written submission has been received from Shri Hitesh Dhuka, Executive Engineer & CPIO, vide letter dated 27.03.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant/Appellant and the same has been taken on record.
2. CIC/DNHDU/A/2023/631761 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09-11-2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 18-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29-06-2023 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18-12-2022. The FAA order is not on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present.
Respondent: Shri Hitesh Dhuka, Executive Engineer & CPIO, attended the hearing.
The Appellant submitted that the Respondent has not provided any reply qua the instant RTI Application within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of RTI Act. He further reiterated the contents of his RTI Application. He added that PWD has no authority for acquisition of the averred road as the same comes under Daman Municipal Corporation. He further added that the First Appellate Authority at the relevant time was Sh. VC Warli, Superintendent Page 3 of 6 Engineer, who has not adjudicated his First Appeal in the instant matter. He added that the reply provided by the Respondent on 11.03.2024 is incomplete.
The Respondent submitted that the then CPIO Shri Mukesh Chandra Gohil, Executive Engineer in-charge, who has now retired from the service, did not provide any reply to the Appellant within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of RTI Act. He added that upon receiving the hearing notice from the Commission, he has provided the information regarding the gazette notification to the Appellant vide letter dated 11.03.2024. He further submitted that their office was only an executing agency, and the acquisition of the road was done by the Revenue Department of the concerned State Government.
A written submission has been received from Shri Hitesh Dhuka, Executive Engineer & CPIO, vide letter dated 27.03.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant/Appellant and the same has been taken on record.
Decision In case file No. CIC/DNHDU/C/2023/605082:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. The Commission finds that the then CPIO Shri Mukesh Chandra Gohil, Executive Engineer in-charge, has not provided any reply qua the instant RTI Application to the Complainant within stipulated time frame which also raises doubt that the denial of information is with a mala fide intent. Therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause notice to the then CPIO Shri Mukesh Chandra Gohil, Executive Engineer In charge, for flouting the provisions of RTI Act. The then PIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons, written explanation of the then PIO should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Shri Hitesh Dhuka, Executive Engineer & CPIO, is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO within one week of receipt of this order.Page 4 of 6
In case file No. CIC/DNHDU/A/2023/631761:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that no reply qua the instant RTI Application was provided by the then CPIO within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission further observes that the reply provided by the present CPIO vide letter dated 11.03.2024 is not complete. During the hearing, it has also come to the notice of the Commission that Sh. VC Warli, Superintendent Engineer, who was the First Appellate Authority at the relevant time has not adjudicated the First Appeal in the instant matter. The Commission cautions the Respondent authority for their casual approach, and they shall avoid such lapses in future.
In view of the above, the Commission deems it fit to direct the present CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised and complete reply to the Appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the event Respondent is required to seek further assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought under Section 5(4) of RTI Act. The Commission further directs the present CPIO that no information shall be disclosed to the Appellant which is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
The FAA shall ensure compliance of this order.
The Complaint and the Appeal are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणि सत्यापिि प्रनि) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 011- 26181827 Date Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6