Central Information Commission
Vemulapalli Manohar Rao vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 25 July, 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
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NHAIN/C/2024/120773
Shri Vemulapalli Manohar Rao निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.07.2025
Date of Decision : 22.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06.09.2023
PIO replied on : 20.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : 19.11.2023
First Appellate Order on : 13.12.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 26.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.09.2023 seeking information on the following points regarding the Land acquisition and selection of concessionaire to develop, manage and operate the NH-9 (presently NH-65) from Km 40.000 to Km 215.8 of Hyderabad to Vijayawada National Highway:-
(a) "The requisition letter No. NHAI /PIU-HYD/BOT/ 2007/101 dt.
04.04.2007 sent to the RDO, Suryapet before vesting the NH-9 in the NHAI; is it legally valid? If it is unauthorised, what is the legal validity of the land acquired by the RDO, Suryapet by obliging the unauthorised land requisition letter from PD?
(b) Can the NHAI send the requisition letter to RDO, Suryapet under Sec.13 of the NHAI Act, 1988 before satisfying the various mandatory provisions under Sections 3(a), 3A(1), 3B, 3A(3), 3G(5) and 3H of the NH Act, 1956; and Section 11 and 16 and it's sub-Sections of the NHAI Act, 1988 by the NHAI; the NHAI sent the letter dated:04.04.2007 to the RDO, Suryapet for requisition of lands under his jurisdiction, be termed as legal and lawful? if it is illegal what action taken by the NHAI.
Page 1 of 5(c) NH-9 vested into the Authority (NHAI) dated:02.09.2009, hence to discharge its functions starts from the date 02.09.2009 not before under Sec.16(1) of the NHAI Act, 1988. Therefore the requisition for land required at Durajapalli Village vide letter NHAI/PIU-HYD/BOT/2007/101 dt. 04.04.2007 by the Project Director, PIU, NHAI Hyderabad to the RDO, Suryapet, united Nalgonda District (presently Suryapet Disrict); then, the lands acquired at Durajapalli; were for the public purpose under Sec.13 of the NHAI Act, 1988?
Section 13 of the NHAI Act, 1988: Compulsory acquisition of land for the Authority: Any land required by the Authority for discharging its functions sunder this Act shall be deemed to be land needed for a public purpose and such land may be acquired for the Authority under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956." (48 of 1956).
(d) RDO, Suryapet appointed as a Competent Authority with a notification S.O.630(E) dated:18.04.2007 and same was published in the Official Gazette No.455 dated:23.04.2007 before the satisfaction of Central Government intent to acquire the lands (within the meaning of sec.3A(1)) under his jurisdiction by the Director, Department of Road Transport and Highways under Sec.3(a) of the NH Act, 1956, is it a valid appointment?
(e) Can the RDO, Suryapet oblige the unauthorised land requisition letter dated:04.04.2007 from the PD, PIU, NHAI, Hyderabad before its appointment as a Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) i.e.23.04.2007.
(f) Can the RDO, Suryapet (purported Competent Authority (LA)) (1) acquire the land under his jurisdiction with a delegated power to perform only Sec.3A, 3D and 3G of the NH Act, 1956? (as per the first page of Order Proceedings dated:05.05.2010, the RDO, Suryapet misconstrued the 3(a) notification in the Official Gazette No.455 dated:23.04.2007). (2)3D notification in the Official Gazette under the NH Act, 1956 is consequence of the Sec.3C of the NH Act, 1956, therefore the Draft notification sent by the RDO, Suryapet to the NHAI/Central Government vide this office Lr. No.C/532/2007-3 dated 08.11.2008 for 3D notification in the Official Gazette; is it authorized one?
(g) RDO, Suryapet cum purported CALA sent a Notice under Sec.3G(3) of the NH Act, 1956 dated 02.12.2009 to the land acquired in Survey No.23, Durajapalli Village belonging to M/s.Essge Plastics Private Limited unit-l and unit-2 misrepresenting it with a non-existed V.J.Plastic as Pattadhar and Sri. Vemulapalli Manohar Rao S/o. Seethaiah as enjoyer, instead of name of the M/s. Essge Plastics Private Limited unit-I and unit-II in Survey No.23 a running industry actually acquired, the Notice dated:02.12.2009 would be a valid /lawful notice to the EPPL under the NH Act, 1956?
(h) The Award Enquiry meeting on 18.12.2009 conducted by the Thasildhar, Chivemla Mandal and Order Proceeding dated: 05.05.2010 passed by the RDO, Suryapet by determining the initial amount as "determination and order" under Sec.3G(1) of the NH Act, 1956 (a purported CALA), is it within the Principals of Natural Justice?
(i) Purported CALA determined the Market Value to the M/s. Essge Plastics Private Limited, Sy. No.23, Durajapalli Village an complete running Small Scale industries unit-l and unit-ll (in short as EPPL) established on a acquired land (industrial land within the meaning of Sec.2(g) of the A.P. NALA Act, 1963) comparing with a unofficially plotted interior agricultural Page 2 of 5 land as reference land (Sec.2(a) of the A.P. NALA Act, 1963); registered in yardage basis which is 1 1/2 Km interior from the NH-9; etc.."
The CPIO, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), PIU-Hyderabad vide letter dated 20.10.2023 replied as under:-
"Please refer to your online RTI application vide ref. cited, the reply pertaining to NHAI, PIU-Hyderabad is herewith furnished:
As per the RTI Act "information is any material in any form, it includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form, it also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force".
As the information desired by you is not of any category as above. Therefore, information cannot be provided as per norms of RTI Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 13.12.2023 held as under:-
4. After considering the detailed facts & circumstances in the case and action history of RTI request of the applicant, the undersigned pass Speaking Order, as detailed below.
a) The RTI request vide Registration No.NHAIN/R/P/23/00706 was made by the applicant on 14/09/2023 and requested to provide the information relating to land acquisition and selection of Concessionaire of Hyderabad - Vijayawada Section of NH-65.
b) The above RTI request has been received by PIO/NHAI, RO Hyderabad through online RTI portal (CPIO) on 18/09/2023 and transferred U/s. 6(3) of RTI Act., 2005 to the PIO/NHAI, PIU Hyderabad through online RTI portal on 20/09/2023 and requested to take necessary action by furnishing the information in respect of their office to the applicant directly.
c) The above RTI request has been received by PIO / NHAI, PIÙ Hyderabad on 20/09/2023 and disposed off vide letter no. NHAI/PIU-HYD/RTI/Vol.
XXV/2023/1020, dated 20/10/2023 duly informing the following to the applicant.
As per the RTI Act "information is any material in any form. It includes records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form. It also includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force".
d) In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is hereby invited and requested to refer Cl. 10 of the Office Memorandum No.1/32/2013-IR, dated 28.11.2013 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, regarding the "Guide on the Right to Information Act., 2005 updated version", which is reproduced as below.
Page 3 of 510. A citizen has a right to seek such information from a public authority which is held by the public authority or which is held under its control. This right includes inspection of work, documents and records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; and taking certified samples of material held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act, that is available and existing and is held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inference and/or making of assumptions; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
e) The appellant is hereby informed that, the action taken by the PIO / NHAI, PIU Hyderabad w.r.t RTI request no. NHAIN/R/P/23/00706, dated 14/09/2023 vide letter no. NHAI/PIU-HYD/RTI/Vol.XXV/2023/1020, dated 20/10/2023 is as per RTI Act., 2005.
f) Hence, the contention of the appellant that, the PIO & Project Director, PIU Hyderabad violated the provisions of RTI Act., 2005 in providing the information with respect to his RTI Request no. NHAIN/R/P/23/00706, dated 14/09/2023 is inappropriate.
Hence, the Appeal thus stands disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri P Nageswara Rao - PIO/Project Director, NHAI, PIU- Hyderabad was present during hearing through video conference. The Respondent stated that reply had been sent to the Complainant, responding on the basis of available records. The Complainant has chosen not to contest the case.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of the Respondent it is noted that the Respondent's reply is legally appropriate and hence it is upheld.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had sent the information, following due course of law as envisaged under the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no Page 4 of 5 question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and neither any of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Moreover, the Complainant has chosen not to pursue the case. In the given circumstances, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required in this case, under the RTI Act.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)