Central Information Commission
Gyamar Maya vs National Highways Infrastructure ... on 20 January, 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/NHICL/A/2021/631931
Gyamar Maya ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways and
Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited, RTI Cell,
PMU Office, TD Building,
Opposite BSNL, SDO office,
Hapoli Ziro, District-Lower
Subansiri Arunachal Pradesh-791120. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/01/2023
Date of Decision : 17/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 16/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 09/06/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 21/06/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/07/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Copy of Memorandum of agreement (MoA) signed between Govt/NHIDCL & executing firms/company for construction of each package of Joram-
Kloriang road under trans Arunachal highway.
12. Copy of mandatory rules & Guidelines for construction of Trans-Pacific partnership highway.
The CPIO replied to the Appellant on 05.04.2021 stating as under -
"...2. In order to submit such voluminous report as per RTI Act., you are requested to submit Demand Draft in favour of "NHIDCL PR ST PMU ZIRO"
Rs, 2 per sheet for approx 5600 sheets amounting Rs. 11200/- (Eleven Thousand Two Hundred only).
3.Further, RTI activist is requested to visit this office on any working day after submission of above demand draft at the address given below..."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.06.2021. FAA's order dated 21.06.2021, held as under:
Payment acknowledgement as intimated in you appeal not found attached. Column of attachment is showing blank. Appeal is disposed of.
Later, the CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 16.07.2021 stating as under
1. It has reliably been confirmed vide a confidential note of 2014 of Ministry of Defence now, that the Road Joram-Koloriang is a strategic Defence Road having National Security importance. Hence, the information of this road fall under Section 8(1)(A) of RTI Act 2005. Hence, information of this road cannot be shared to RTI Activist.
2. You are requested to process the refund of the remittance from the concerned Ministry/Department to which the amount of Rs. 11200/-
(Rupees Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Only) was deposited.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of asking additional payment of fees by the CPIO at first instance and upon receipt of payment for Rs. 11,200/- and the wrong denial of information by the CPIO subsequently.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Retd. Col. Prabhakar Kumar, General Manager (P) & CPIO present in person.2
The CPIO at the outset invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 28.12.2022, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
.....3. "xxx Since the information sought by Mr. Gyamar Maya was voluminous, CPIO, Ziro vide letter no. NHIDCL/PMUZIRO/2021-22/RTI/3063 dated 05.04.2021 has intimated Mr. Gyamar Maya to submit Demand Draft of Rs. 11200/- in favour of "NHIDCL IMPREST PMU ZIRO".
Copy of the letter No NHIDCL/PMU-ZIRO/2021- 22/RTI/3063 dated 05.04.2021 (Enclosed herewith as Appex-A)
4. That in reply to the contents of para 8 (c), CPIO, Ziro vide its letter dated 05.04.2021 had given crystal clear instruction to submit DD to CPIO, Ziro in favour of "NHIDCL IMPREST PMU ZIRO", as per the RTI Rules 2012 but Mr. Gyamar Maya did not submit any DD to CPIO, Ziro till date. On the contrary, Mr Gyamar Maya claimed to have deposited the Additional fees online and he, telephonically or through whatsapp confirmed for making the payment to an inappropriate account through online instead of submitting DD as per the direction of the concerned CPIO which is the violation of the RTI Rules 2012, which states that an applicant can make payment of fee in cash to the public authority or CAPIO or by demand draft or banker's cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. Hence, it is clear that the payment of Photostat to be made to the Ministry/department/office from where information is to be sought. It is further stated that Mr Gyamar Maya sent a mail with attachment on dated 27.05.2021 to the CPIO Ziro's office stating that payment was made through online, but in that attachment neither the account Number nor the account details of Ministry/department was mentioned. Thereafter, the same was conveyed to Mr. Gyamar Maya via telephone, whatsapp message followed by this office letter No. NHIDCL/PMUZIRO/ 2021/RTI/3319 dated 21.06.2021.
Copy of email attachment on 27.05.2021 (Enclosed at Appex-B) copy of this office letter no-3319 dated 21.06.2021 at Appex-C.
5. That in reply to the contents of para 8 (d), CPIO, PMU-Ziro had clearly instructed Mr Gyamar Maya to sent the account details where the payment was made because in NHIDCL there are several Regional offices and several accounts handled by professional CA. After given so much clear instruction to the applicant Mr Gyamar Maya, applicant made calls in odd hours and threatening to sue if the 3 details were not given. After submission of application of RTI, there is 30 days time but RTI Applicant has made several calls to this office and threatening to provide details as early as possible without following the procedure and providing the account details.
6. That in reply to the contents of para 8(e) , it is stated that despite several phone enquiries done by this office, RTI Applicant Mr Gyamar Maya did not give this office or the office personnel any satisfactory reply as to in which account or account details of the transaction made by the RTI Applicant. The attachment sent by RTI Applicant Mr Gyamar Maya was the same earlier attachment which was sent to this office vide email on dated 27.05.2021. After perusal of the attachment, no one can divulge the account or account details from it. Upon verification, it is found that no such payment has been reflected neither in CPIO Ziro office "NHIDCL IMPREST PMU ZIRO" account nor in our Regional Office- Itanagar account.
Copy of email attachment as mentioned in para-4 above as Appex-B.
7. That in reply to the content of Para 8(f), RTI Applicant Mr Gyamar Maya sent all details to CPIO Ziro is false and vehemently denied by NHIDCL except the matter of record. CPIO, PMU-Ziro further states that the details sent by RTI Applicant Mr Gyamar Maya were incomplete as stated in the above paras wherein no details of account number nor account holder name or departmental name reflected. Accordingly, the details did not divulge anything about the confirmation of payment to CPIO Ziro. From April to June 2021, almost 3 months gone passed but the details which need to be provided by RTI Applicant Mr Gyamar Maya to CPIO, PMU-Ziro and Regional Office-Itanagar could not be provided. It clearly shows RTI Applicant has other intention towards NHIDCL departments and their officials and than seeking information.
(Copy of his legal notice dated 05.07.2021 may please be reffered). Copy of attachment sent by RTI Applicant dated 27/05/2021 is Appex-B as mentioned in Para 4 above and this office letter 3063 dated 05.04.2021 is Appex- A mentioned at Para 3 above.
8. That the averment contained in para 3 of RTI Applicant Notice dated 05.07.2021 (Copy attached) that demand draft is not the appropriate mode of payment at this era of digital world is denied that RTI seeker is challenging the rules prescribed by the Govt. of India which may invite prosecution under appropriate Criminal Laws. Further, CPIO, PMU-Ziro states that after so many letters and telephonic conversation by this office with RTI Applicant, finally sent the email on dated 4 02.07.2021 wherein he attached his account statement where a payment of 11200/- was reflected in the account number- 32850572700 and before 02.07.2021 RTI Applicant did not provide any account number or account details to which he paid the additional fees of photocopies for RTI documents. It is therefore crystal clear that intention of RTI Applicant is not good and that's why RTI Applicant is delayed the submission of details desired by CPIO, PMU-Ziro. This is to bring to notice that this is a public govt. office and the money is funded from all tax payers of this country, hence every paisa is accounted and audited. Therefore, without verifying the credit of cost of photocopy of RTI documents, no information could have been given to RTI Applicant as per the RTI rules 2012 as stated in para 4 of this letter. Moreover, account intimated by RTI Applicant on 02/07/2021, does not pertain to CPIO Ziro or any office of NHIDCL.
Copy of the attachment of email dated 02.07.2021 is enclosed at Appex-D, Copy of the RTI Applicant Notice to CPIO, PMU-Ziro is attached as Appex-E.
9. xxx
10. .... Further, it is informed that RTI Applicant has admitted his mistake himself in this para that he could not upload the attachment due to network issues and put straightway wrong allegation on the Appellate Authority for the fault of the RTI Applicant which is blatantly an attempt RTI Applicant to defame CPIO Ziro and the Appellate Authority and which clearly depicts that RTI Applicant have some other intentions towards NHIDCL and PMU-Ziro to get compensation on the pretext of false allegation against NHIDCL and manipulating the instant case in order to extort the Govt money.
11. That the averment contained in para 8 (i) of RTI Applicant Notice, as the RTI Applicant in his statement said he provided the bank statement and bank details to Appellate Authority on 30.06.2021, where the payment was made then why the RTI Applicant delayed the same details to provide to CPIO, PMU Ziro.
The same details were provided to CPIO, PMU-Ziro on 02.07.2021 after 1 days later. If the intention of the RTI Applicant were good then he must have sent the details to CPIO, PMU-Ziro office from where the details would have furnished instead of visiting Appellate Authority office Regional Office-Itanagar. RTI Applicant intention was to harass the NHIDCL staffs and officials that's why the RTI Applicant regularly visits and called staffs of CPIO, PMU-Ziro and visit Regional office-Itanagar.
512..... the details of bank account and statement where the payment was made was provided to CPIO, PMU-Ziro on 02.07.2022 and that was the first time after so many instruction RTI Applicant has share the desired details as mentioned in para 7 above. But the RTI Applicant is in so hurry that letters number and submission of details dates are manipulated. As the payment details in which the RTI Applicant has deposited the money has been forwarded to this office on 02.07.2021 instead of 01.07.2021. Is a clear intention of the RTI Applicant that he tries to defaming and obstructing the duties of a Govt official and in other intention as the RTI Applicant is in his 05.07.2021 notice already said that he will sue CPIO, PMU-Ziro and would have appeal for compensation to harassing the RTI Applicant and that show other intentions towards NHIDCL and PMU-Ziro to get compensation on the pretext of false allegation against NHIDCL and manipulating the instant case in order to extort the Govt money.
13. That the averment contained in para 8 (k) of RTI Applicant Notice, that the Legal Notice sent by RTI Applicant should not invoked the remedy i.e. Second appeal, Third Appeal and Final Appeal to RTI Commission as available to RTI Applicant under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. It is well settled that when an alternative effective remedies is available to the RTI Activist, he has to exhaust that remedy and not invoke any other remedy available in other Acts. Hence, the RTI Applicant should have gone as per the procedure. The Legal Notice sent by RTI Applicant on 05.07.2021was unwarranted. But CPIO, PMU-Ziro has professionally and deligently replied the parawaise comment of that notice dated 05.07.2021.CPIO Ziro vide letter no (3365 dated 01.07.2022 copy enclosed at Appx-F) has clearly stated that if the payment was not made to NHIDCL or CPIO, PMU-Ziro account, information could not be provided to RTI Applicant, Status of payment as stated in the above para 7 has been provided by RTI Activist on 02.07.2022 and after 2 days later the RTI Activist was on so hurry that he served CPIO, PMU-Ziro, NHIDCL and Regional office a Notice as mentioned in above para at 8 and that's reflect the intention of the RTI Applicant. CPIO, PMU-Ziro had forwarded the letter 3365 on 01.07.2021 and later gave reply to the Legal Notice sent by RTI Applicant on dated 18.08.2022.
14. The CPIO Ziro is well acquainted with the procedure of RTI act 2005 and RTI Rule 2012 and its subsequent amendment and circumstances in the aforesaid case including payment procedures. No Govt. official will favour RTI Applicant contrary to the applicable rules. In the instant case, money has not been deposited to an inappropriate account. The GM (P) being the CPIO is fully aware of the payment procedure of RTI Act 2005 and RTI Act updated revision vide Ministry of personnel, public Grievance & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training letter no 6 1/32/2013-IR dated 28/11/2013, wherein Part-II for Public Authorities in Para13 clearly stated about the payment procedure and CPIO Ziro has acted accordingly.
10. After several direction given by the CPIO Ziro office vide various letters i.e. (3063 dated 05.04.2021, 3319 dated 21.06.2021 & 3365 dated 01.07.2021), it seems that RTI Applicant was not willing to follow the direction of this office instead RTI Applicant made the payment online and payment was made in an account no. which does not pertain to the NHIDCL and CPIO Ziro. Further, The Relevant extract of payment procedure as per RTI rule 2012 are given below:
"According to the Right to Information Rules, 2012, an applicant can make payment of fee in cash to the public authority or CPIO or by demand draft or banker's cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. The payment of fee to the Central Ministries/departments can also be made online through internet banking of State Bank of India or through Master/Visa Debit/Credit Cards. The public authority should ensure that payment by any of the above modes is not denied or the applicant is not compelled to draw IPO etc. in the name of any other than the Accounts Officer. If any public authority does not have any Accounts officer, it should designate an officer as such for the purpose of receiving fee under the RTI Act and Rules made thereunder".
Copy of the letters No. 3063 dated 05.04.2021 is Appex-A mentioned at Para4 above, no. 3319 dated 21.06.2021 is Appex-C and No. 3365 dated 01.07.2021 is Appex-E .
15.
14. Please note that the Ministry of Defence has notified the projects of Joram Koloriang road in Arunachal Pradesh as a Strategic Defence Highway Project . Therefore, all information pertaining to Joram Koloriang Highway Project fall under section 8(1) (A) of RTI act 2005. Hence, any information related to this road cannot be shared to any RTI activists as the same would be prejudicial to the security and integrity of the country which CPIO got later.
xxx In conclusion , the CPIO apprised the Commission that the Appellant had sought similar kind of information about other strategic road projects by filing multiple RTI Applications with their organization . Keeping this in the backdrop, the CPIO further added that after he had asked the Appellant to deposit the requisite RTI fees for providing the relevant information ; he ascertained about the strategic nature of the information sought from the Ministry of Defence, GOI which informed that the Road Joram-Koloriang is a strategic Defence Road having National Security importance. The CPIO further added that hence, the information 7 of this road under RTI Act cannot be shared with the Appellant as it is hit by Section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act 2005. Further, since an amount of Rs. 11200 claimed to have been deposited by the Appellant in to the Respondent's accounts had not been credited into the latter's accounts and the fact that the Appellant was not able to prove deposit of this amount into the Respondent's accounts ; the question of refund of the remittance from their Organization does not arise.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was non-receipt of desired information from the CPIO despite payment of an additional payment of Rs. 11,200/- in compliance with CPIO's initial reply. In response to it, the CPIO comprehensively explained that the Ministry of Defence has notified the projects of Joram Koloriang road in Arunachal Pradesh as a Strategic Defence Highway Project and therefore, information pertaining to Joram Koloriang Highway Project fall under section 8(1) (a) of RTI act 2005. Hence, the information related to this road was very appropriately denied to the Appellant as the same would be prejudicial to the security and integrity of the country .
The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of contents of Section 8 (1)(a) of RTI Act, which are reproduced below for ready reference -
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen;
xxx
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;"
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the subsequent reply provided by the CPIO as it was in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief of information in the matter.
ADVISORY Further, it will be in the best interest of Respondent Public Authority to issue a circular/standing orders in the spirit of RTI Act as regards the standard protocols to be followed by the CPIO's prior to responding to RTI Applications of such 8 strategic importance in future and also to ensure that they ascertain the sensitivity / confidential nature of the information sought for from the concerned department/ Public Authorities at the first instance keeping in mind the applicability of relevant exemption clause of Section 8(1) of RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority of such kind of situations .
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, a copy of this order is marked to the Chairman, NHIDCL to take necessary action on the abovementioned order.
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 / Copy marked to take necessary action in the matter -
To The Chairman, NHIDCL, PTI Building, 4 Parliament Street, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi-110001 9