Central Information Commission
Patel Suchak D vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 28 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NHAIN/A/2020/109469
Patel Suchak D ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of
India, RTI Cell, G-5 & 6, Sector - 10,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/12/2021
Date of Decision : 27/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/11/2019
CPIO replied on : 18/12/2019
First appeal filed on : 19/12/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/02/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 08.11.2019 seeking the following information;
1. What are the objectives and advantages behind the introduction of the FASTag.
2. Was there any expert committee appointed by the Government of India who suggested the introduction of the FASTag. If yes then please provide the copy of the report of such committee.
3. Provide the Month wise list of the - Number of Vehicles Penalised for entering FASTag lane and having no FASTag and also Provide the total amount of money collected through such penalties (Month wise)
4. Provide the Month wise list of the FASTag issued since the introduction of the FASTag to the date of the 8th November 2019 (where applicant applied through online mode)
5. Provide the Month wise list of the FASTag issued since the introduction of site FASTag to the date of the 8th November 2019 (where applicant applied through offline mode)
6. Do the Date of the 8th November - How Many outlets/counters/toll plazas are there from where a citizen can issue the FASTag through offline mode. Provide the List of All.
7. Is there any evaluation/study conducted by the Ministry after the introduction of the FASTag regarding its impact, benefits and shortcomings?
8. Is there any mechanism/ Framework established by the ministry to safeguard the data privacy and data security of the Vehicles having FASTag. If yes, then please provide the details of the same.
9. Provide the details of the Grievance redressal mechanism of the FAStag complaints The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 18.12.2019 stating as follows:-
Point No. 1:- To provide seamless movement to road users to National Highways Fee Plazas.
Point No. 2, 7 & 8:- Transferred to MoRTH.
Point No. 3:- No such data has been compiled as on date. Point No. 4 & 5:- Total 63.71 lakhs FASTags was issued till 31.10.2019. As on 15.12.2019 total 98.32 FASTag have been issued.
Point No. 6:- Details of Point of sale for FASTag is available at ihmcl.com. Point No. 9:- Helpline No. 1033 can be contacted.
2Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.12.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: Ajay Mishra, G.M. & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant earlier and also upon receipt of hearing notice a revised point wise detailed reply along with additional information has been furnished to the Appellant now vide letter dated 24.12.2021.
To a query from the Commission, the Appellant affirmed the receipt of the averred reply, however, he expressed his dissatisfaction to the factum of delay caused by the CPIO in giving detailed reply now which ought to have been furnished to him within the stipulated time frame as per RTI Act. Further, in response to point no. 2 he contested that a copy the Nadan Nilkenai Committee's report as mentioned in the revised reply has not been provided to him till date.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset upon perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO now as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding delay in providing reply is not tenable as is evident from the fact that timely response has already been furnished by the CPIO on 18.12.2019 in terms of RTI Act.
However, the Commission further observes from perusal of record that the information given by the CPIO now on 24.12.2021 could have provided by him earlier with their earlier reply in order to avoid undue inconvenience faced by the 3 Appellant. In this regard, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence while responding to the RTI Applications in further.
Now, upon insistence of the Appellant made during hearing and considering the limited scope of relief sought, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the Nadan Nilkenai Committee's report in response to point no. 2 after redacting the names and identifying particulars of said Committee members disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO in consonance of Section 10 of RTI Act.
The aforesaid information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant through speed post and via email within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4