Central Information Commission
Rajeev Gaonkar vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 22 April, 2024
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/2023/109132
Shri Rajeev Gaonkar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Highways Authority of India
Date of Hearing : 19.04.2024
Date of Decision : 19.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.09.2021
PIO replied on : 30.10.2021
First Appeal filed on : 12.01.2022
First Appellate Order on : 15.02.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 02.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.09.2021 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Kindly provide the list of Consultants appointed by NHAI in this section of project.
2. Provide the copies of all Bills settled till date to various Consultants of this section by NHAI.
3. Copies of all Bills settled to AECOM Consultants for visiting and giving report regarding letter No. AECOM/HWH/2019-20/GOA/5158 Dated 29-02- 2000."
The CPIO vide letter dated 30.10.2021 replied as under:-
"1. M/s. AECOM Asia Company Ltd., M/s. Theme Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.
2. The information sought is not disclosed as per section 8 (d) of RTI Act 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2022. The FAA vide order dated 15.02.2022 stated as under:-
Page 1 "(i) The reply furnished by PD & PIO Mangalore has been further examined and the PIO is directed to provide the details of Contract amount and payment released to the consultant."
In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO furnished revised reply dated 26.03.2022 as under:
3. As per the First Appellate Authority Order, the information pertaining to this office is as detailed below;
Original Contract amount (Rs) 15,03,09,055/-
Revised Contract value including EOT (Rs) 28,60,72,587/-
Total payment released AECOM(RS) to 27,44,87,317/-"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video conferencing.
Respondent: Mr Abdula Javed Azmi, Project Director, NHAI- through video conferencing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had specifically sought for all Bills settled to AECOM Consultants but same has not been provided by the PIO.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant. He further stated that in compliance of order of FAA the details of Original Contract amount, Revised Contract value including EOT and total payment released AECOM has been furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 2 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)