Central Information Commission
Tamal Sanyal vs National Building Construction ... on 9 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NBCCL/A/2024/103622
Tamal Sanyal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
NBCC (India) Ltd, RTI Division,
NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.07.2025
Date of Decision : 08.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 23.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 03.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.11.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 10.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"Subject-INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT, 2005 IN R/O "AMRAPALI LEISURE PARK", GH-01, TECH ZONE -IV, GREATER NOIDA GAUTAM BUDOH NAGAR (U.P.) Sir, Page 1 of 6 I may kindly be provided the following information under RTI Act, 2005, in respect of the above mentioned project (Amrapali Leisure Park), within stipulated time-
1. The total amount (in Rupees) of IFMS charge, collected from buyers (sub-lessees), by Court Receiver and/or Amrapali
2. The disposal of the above amount. Kindly attach evidence 3 Information as to how the amount of IFMS is planned to be utilized
4. The name/details of the present custodian of the IFMS amount
5. Rule, Law or order under which it is being stressed upon to form Ad- hoc or regular Apartment Owners Association, as a precondition for handing over of the above project
6. The details of responsibility which NBCC is mandated to complete in the above project (Scope of work). Plz provide copy of contract between NBCC & VCL company.
7. Details of completed works by NBCC in above project
8. Details of work kept pending by NBCC in above project
9. Exact date by which all the pending works will be completed by NBCC in above project
10. The break up of the cost of dual meter purchased for above project. Please attach proof
11. If the cost of dual meter is below Rs 25000/-, the justification for extra charges
12. Justification for changing GST on and above Rs 25000/- for dual meter, while the cost of above meters must have been including GST. Plz quote the total amount of "extra" GST so collected and attach documentary proof that GST so collected from buyers has been deposited with concerned Govt authority
13. The amount each buyer (sub-lessee) has to pay for electric connection to Noida Power Corporation Limited (MPCL) now and facilities to be provided by NPCL in lieu of that charge
14. Monthly per square foot rate of maintenance changes being planned to be charged from buyers Sub-lessees
15. Details of FAR being sold in the above project
16. Detail plan of car parking which NBCC proposes to hand over to buyers (sub-lessees) (Please attach/provide detailed flatwise plan)
17. Total number of ground floor buyers (sub-lessees) who had booked and paid for lawns in front of their flats and whether they will get it 18 Details of changes in the layout plan after sale of FAR and whether the amount of open area of the project reduced due to this sale, if an
19. Details of sale of FAR, name and details of person/company/organization who purchased it and the price paid for it, if any.Page 2 of 6
20. Latest Date by which basic facilities like electricity, water, sewage etc. will he ready in the above project
21. Name of maintenance agency proposed for maintenance of the project and the reason why NBCC being the 'Builder for all purposes refuses to maintain the project for one year
22. Supreme Court, vide its order dated 29/7/2019 had ordered for Tripartite agreement between buyers (sub-lessees), Court Receiver and GNIDA within one month. Please confirm whether it has been completed.
23. The date by which OC (Occupancy Certificate) and CC (Completion Certificate) for the above project will be procured
24. Various safety checks conducted by various authorities in the project, including fire safety and earthquake resistance. Kindly attach the concerned reports
25. Greater Noida Authority by the virtue of its executing a lease deed with Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt Limited had set a framework, within which the said company had to function and Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt Ltd. By accepting those terms and conditions had entered into a legally binding contractual relationship with GNIDA and due to this the legal relationship between them was of the "Principal' and 'Agent', as enumerated under section 182 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. So, for default of Agent (Amrapali) to complete the work allotted to it, the 'Principal' (GNIDA) is legally entirely liable to complete it's pending work. The Supreme Court has also clearly held in its judgement quoted above that builders, GNIDA and banks cheated the buyers, in collusion with each other.
Kindly state the reason (in detail), why this settled law was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
26. Details of enquiry initiated and action taken/proposed against officials of GNIDA, who were responsible for overlooking the violation of lease by Amrapali. If no action taken, reasons thereof (Question pertains to GNIDA. Hence cancelled)"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.05.2023 stating as under:
"Point no. 1 to 26 In accordance with directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, any RTI queries pertaining to Amrapali works can only be replied if directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Court Accordingly, your application under the RTI Act is considered as disposed off."Page 3 of 6
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.11.2023, held as under.
"The RTI division reply is in line with the Directions of the Court Receiver of Hon'ble supreme court.
Accordingly, your 1st appeal to the First Appellate Authority application is hereby considered as disposed off."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 02.07.2025 filed by Ms. Manjeeta Mahajan Srivastava, GM (HRM)-cum-CPIO, NBCC is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...FACTUAL BACK GROUND:
i. CPIO, NBCC forwarded the RTI application to the concerned deemed PIO for obtaining requisite information on 17.05.2023 through RTI portal & e-mail.
ii. The requisite information was received from Deemed PIO on dated 23.05.2023. Accordingly, NBCC disposed of the application on dated 23.05.2023. (enclosed as Annexure - II).
REPLIES:
Point nos. 01 to 26 In accordance with directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, any RTI Queries pertaining to Amrapali works can only be replied if directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble Court.
Therefore, information sought cannot be shared/disclosed under the provision of Sections 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, as the same relates to information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.
It is clarified that vide order dated 10.06.2020 in WP(C) 940/2017 titled Bikram Chatterjee & ors VS Union of India & ors, the Hon'ble Supreme court has granted immunity to NBCC to be sued in any other court or commission and has made it answerable only to the Hon'ble Supreme court.
EXPLANATION:Page 4 of 6
It can be seen that the reply has already been furnished by the CPIO w.r.t. the RTI application. Hence, the complaint has no merit and is requested to be disposed of."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Smt. Manjeeta Mahajan Srivastava, GM (HRM)/CPIO along with Shri Neelesh Sahu, PM (Civil), NBCC present in person.
6. The Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI application stated that desired information has been wrongly denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)(b) of the RTI Act.
7. The Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of her written submission stated that issue on the similar subject has already been decided by this Bench bearing case No. CIC/NBCCL/A/2023/649069 case titled "Ojaswi Singh v. PIO, NBCC India Ltd." heard on 29.01.2025 with no further directions. Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the records and considering the submissions tendered by the Respondent observes that similar Appeals has already been heard and adjudicated by this bench vide case File No. CIC/NBCCL/A/2023/649069 case titled "Ojaswi Singh v. PIO, NBCC India Ltd." heard on 29.01.2025 with the following observations:
"...The Respondent submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application cannot be disclosed in accordance with the directions received from Court Receiver of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 940/2017 and therefore, the same is exempted under Section 8 (1) (b) of the RTI Act.
A written submission has been received from Smt. Manjeeta Mahajan Srivastava, CPIO-cum-GM, vide letter dated 27.01.2025, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"REPLIES: Point (a) to (h) Page 5 of 6 Information sought cannot be shared/disclosed in accordance with the directions, as received from Court Receiver of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, NBCC is unable to respond to any RTI query pertaining to Amrapali works.
EXPLANATION:
It can be seen that the reply has already been furnished by the CPIO w.r.t. the RTI application. Hence, the complaint has no merit and is requested to be disposed of."
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply in terms of RTI Act has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 17.08.2023. Moreover, the Appellant did not participate in the hearing to contest the submission of the Respondent. No intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter."
9. The ratio of the above said order holds good for the instant case as well. Moreover, the Commission has no power to review its own order on the identical subject under the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be granted in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, NBCC (India) Ltd, Corporate Office, NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)