Central Information Commission
Chirag Tyagi vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 21 July, 2023
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/2022/149433
Chirag Tyagi .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highway Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit
Ghaziabad, RTI Cell, Under CWG
Flyover, at Km. 2+000 of NH-9,
(Old NH-24), Near Akshardham Temple,
Delhi-110092. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/07/2023
Date of Decision : 18/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2022
CPIO replied on : 06/09/2022
First appeal filed on : 12/09/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 15/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.08.2022 seeking the following information:1
"I respectfully request the information and documents, as mentioned herein this application. Kindly response the below mentioned queries with respect to RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021 "Bid for Establishment of 4 Nos. Highway Nest (Mini) shop for sale of food and beverages items on Delhi Meerut Expressway (NH No. 9) Km 0.500 & Km 1.150 on LHS and RHS of Yamuna Bridges in the State of Delhi ". Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257_1.
I. Please inform the Name, Designation and other details of the concerned officer who were supposed to act on the Representation cum Complaint filed by the undersigned on 08/08/2022 (By Hand), & on 09/08/2022 (By Speed Post) and through E-mail, in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-UHMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257 1.
2. Please inform me of that what action has been taken upon the Representation cum Complaint filed by the undersigned on 08/08/2022 (By Hand). & on 09/08/2022 (By Speed Post) and through E-mail, in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU- GZB/DME-UHMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257_1.
3. Please inform that what is the stipulated time, is fixed by the NHAI to disposed of these types of Representation cum Complaints.
4. Please inform those who were the members of Committee, deputed to check/analyze the Technical Bid in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU- GZB/DME-UHMN/2021. Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257_1. Please provide the Name, Designation and other details of those members of Committee.
5. Please inform that what facts/points have been considered while analyzing the Technical Bid in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257_1.
6. Please inform that whether any shortcomings were found during analysis of Technical Bid of First Highest Bidder & Second Highest Bidder in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257_I. If yes, kindly provide the details of the same.
7. Please inform that whether any Bidder has been disqualified in Technical Bid in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257_1. If yes, please inform that what are the grounds of their disqualification.
28. Please inform that whether any Bidder is liable to Disqualify if he had submitted false Undertakings.
9. Please inform who is the First highest Bidder in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257_1.
10. Please inform who is the Second Highest Bidder in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHA1_122257_1.
11. Please inform who is the Third Highest Bidder in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHA 1_122257_1.
12. Please inform that whether the First Highest Bidder in respect with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021, Tender 113 No. 2022_NHAI_122257_1, had deposited his Performance Fees or not.
13. Please inform that what further action will be taken by NHAI. if the First Highest Bidder is failed to submit Performance Fees within stipulated time period as instructed by NHAI.
14. Please inform that what is the present status of RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU- GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257_1.
15. Please inform that whether there is any provision to upload the result of Financial Bid on NHAI website or not. If yes please inform that whether the result of Financial Bid in connection with RFP No. NHAI/NHAIPIU-GZB/DME-1/HMN/2021, Tender ID No. 2022_NHAI_122257_1, has been uploaded on NHAI portal or not."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.09.2022 stating as under:
"Readily available information is contained in Annexure-I."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2022. FAA's order, dated 15.09.2022 held that the reply along with information has already been provided by the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Puneet Khanna, Manager (T) PIU cum CPIO along with Balram (Site Engg.) PIU Gzb. Present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that a point wise reply answering all his queries in categorical manner was not provided by the CPIO till date.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant. At points no. 1-2, the Appellant has sought details of action taken on his complaint dated 08.08.2022, time period for disposal complaint and names of members of committee disposing his complaint; in this regard, certified copy of his complaint has already been parted which covers all his queries. He furthermore explained that although there is no prefixed time lines for disposal of complaint, however, as per the extant norms such complaints are decided usually within 30 days. While on points no. 3- 14, the Appellant has asked for details pertaining to a tender bid of a RFP wherein the Appellant himself is a bidder and therefore, he can easily access all the records related to said tender with his log in ID by entering the unique tender bid number allotted to him.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset upon close scrutiny of records finds no scope of action as such , in the matter with respect to information sought as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon; as the queries raised by the Appellant do not even conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as it appears that the Appellant has sought for clarifications/ inferences from the CPIO based on interrogatories, to that extent the reply of the CPIO is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.4
Here, the attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.
Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not 5 have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Notwithstanding the aforesaid, it is also noteworthy that the reply of the CPIO is not very categorical as was discussed/stated by him during the hearing. While the Commission finds no reason to intervene into the merits of maintenance of the records as stated by the CPIO, but it was incumbent upon the CPIO to have informed the Appellant in writing in the manner it was explained by him during the hearing.
Having observed as above and by taking a liberal view in the matter, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to revisit the contents of impugned RTI Application and provide a revised point wise categorical reply clearly mentioning the facts as quoted by him during the hearing coupled with the relevant available information (point wise) which may suffices the information sought by the Appellant.6
The abovesaid reply should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant 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 (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7