Central Information Commission
B C Reghiwale vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 16 August, 2022
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/2021/638601 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/639238 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/639720 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/641788 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/654870 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/654864 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/641759 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/656453 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/663608
B C Reghiwale ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit, RTI Cell,
Mangaldeep Plot No. 25, I.U..D.P Colony.
Mahakali Road, Washim - 444505,
Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/08/2022
Date of Decision : 12/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal(s):
File No. RTI CPIO First Appeal FAA's order Second
Application replied on dated dated Appeal dated
dated
1
638601 19.06.2021 08.07.2021 03.08.2021 06.08.2021 NIL
639238 19.06.2021 08.07.2021 03.08.2021 06.08.2021 17.08.2021
639720 14.05.2021 11.06.2021 03.08.2021 06.08.2021 28.08.2021
641788 08.08.2021 24.08.2021 02.09.2021 08.09.2021 09.09.2021
654870 17.09.2021 11.11.2021 29.10.2021 17.11.2021 17.11.2021
654864 19.08.2021 17.09.2021 01.11.2021 17.11.2021 17.11.2021
656453 28.09.2021 28.10.2021 16.11.2021 17.11.2021 20.11.2021
641759 17.07.2021 19.08.2021 02.09.2021 08.09.2021 NIL
663608 15.11.2021 10.12.2021 11.12.2021 30.12.2021 30.12.2021
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/638601
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "It is true that you have acquired the land required for 60 m row, adjacent to our gut no. 60 at Sawarkhed ta Patur ?
Ans. should be yes/ no.
2. When you have taken the possession of this land ? Date may be given.
3. You have acquired the land adjacent to this gut in a rectangular shape of the length equal to the length of our gut , for widening the road of row 60 m.
Then please inform us that from which sources you acquired the same ? Suppose you have acquired this land - A are Then it must be from i. Baheti gut no 59 - B are ii. Our gut no 60 - C are iii. Your existing 22 m row road. - D are Then please prepare the following equation. A is equal to B plus C plus D And then after talling properly send us. Please inform us whether it tallied or not ?
4. Whether any realignment is in jmr map or in your project in this portion adjacent to our gut ?
5. Inform length of our gut adjacent to road ?
6. Whether median is steady adjacent to our gut?"
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 08.07.2021 stating as follows:-2
"Point No. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6:- This office vide letter dated 21.06.2021 has already provided to you Information in form of 03 Nos. of JMR sheets & 01 no of LAP page for adjacent to Gut. No. 60. However, if applicant require same information then pay Rs. 595 for providing requisite information.
Point No. 2:- This information available with this office in 09 Nos. A4 pages for possession certificate.
For providing requisite information in 03 Nos. of JMR sheets, 09 Nos. of A4 pages & 1 LAP page, you are requested to deposit Rs. 613/- (03x Rs. 180 for per JMR sheet + 09x Rs. 02 per A4 page + 01x Rs. 5 for per A3 page+ Rs. 50 Postal Charges) in the form of IPO/DD payable to Project Director, NHAI, PIU Washim."
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/639238 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 19.06.2021 seeking the following information:
"Whether the chart of row, provided by NHAI in Brief Project Report, at S no. 1.4.2, on page no 7 and 8 is correct or not ?
This project report page is attached h / w in separate file ."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 08.07.2021 stating as follows:-
"Land has been acquired/being acquired by CALA on the basis of JMR submitted by Dy. SLR. Copy of same available with this office in 02 Nos. of JMR sheets."
For providing requisite information in 02 Nos. JMR Sheets, you are requested to deposit Rs. 410/-(02 x 180 Rs. Per JMR sheet+50) in the form of IPO/DD payable to Project Director, NHAI PIU Washim."
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/639720 3 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 14.05.2021 seeking the following information:
"It is a very simple calculation for the land acquired from our gut no 60 at Sawarkhed Ta Patur dt Akola on NH 161.
In a layout map as per the km shown by the joint measurement Committee. It is seen clearly that the total land acquired by NH is adjacent and in between our two guts no 60 and 59 is as below.
Total length of land acquired 42.070 - 41.770 is 300 mtr Therefore.Total area acquired is 300 x 38 is 11400 sq mtr That is 114 gunthe Because row between these kmt is 22 mtrs as per the project estimate. Hence from our these guts land acquired for 60 mtr row is 114 gunthe Similarly from each gut equally area of land acquired is 114 / 2 is 57 gunthe Hence the balance of57 - 36 is 21 gunthe lo land remained to be compensated.
Hence you are requested to send the following information only in a simple letter only stating in writing that whether this mathematic calculation is correct or not ? with your certificate.
If wrong please illustrate in detail.
It may be recollected that we don't want colour or any jmr copy etc . This is required for our tally of land acquisition case. Jamila Bhika Reghiwale."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 11.06.2021 stating as follows:-
"Information is available with this office in 02 Nos. JMR sheets.
For providing requisite information in 02 Nos. JMR Sheets, you are requested to deposit Rs. 410/-(02 x 180 Rs. Per JMR sheet+50) in the form of IPO/DD payable to Project Director, NHAI PIU Washim."
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/641788 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 08.08.2021 seeking the following information:4
"please send me the legal document , which is required to prove the row i.e. total width of the National highway, for the following segment of Highway. Highway no 161, km no. Akola Km 43 to 45 ( existing ). Legal document means :- As we demand 7/12 in case of the land case to prove its quantity."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 24.08.2021 stating as follows:-
"This office has already provider-1 information to you vide letter no. NHAI/ PIU/WHEVRTI-Online Portal/2021/783 dated 17.06.2021. However same information is require then information is available in form of 10 Nos. of JMR Sheets and 05 Nos. pages of ROW Bar Chart.
For providing requisite information in 10 Nos. of JMR sheets & 05 No. of A4 pages, you are requested to deposit 17s. 2,050/- (10 x Rs. 200 per JMR Sheet - 05 x Rs. 2 per A4 page + Rs. 50 postal charges) in the form of IPO/DD payable to Regional Officer, NHA I RO-Nagpur."
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/641759 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 17.07.2021 seeking the following information:
"Kindly send me the complete list in the following format, those have been already paid competition of their land acquired for 60 m row between Akola- Washim HW 161.
A ) sr.no B ) Name of land lord , including govt.
C ) row applied in m. for the calculations of his compensation. D ) Govt approved row in m., adjacent to his land. Gut no. and gut is in betn existing km no so and so.
C ) Total amount paid for land compensation ,by applying 30 m row / other in m., to this Land lord.
D ) Total compensation to be paid by applying Govt approved row to this Land lord.
E ) Different in amount remained to be paid to this Land lord, without doing any further formalities, with 12 % interest.
D ) When we shall get this arrears dues ?
E ) Who will pay this huge interest ?5
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.08.2021 stating as follows:-
"This information is available with this office in 1200 Nos. Pages of Award & 05 Nos. Pages of ROW Bar Chart. For providing requisite information in 1205 No. of A4 pages, you are requested to deposit Rs. 2460/- (1205 x Rs. 2 per A4 page +Rs. 50 postal charges) in the form of IPO/DD payable to Regional Officer, NHAI RO-Nagpur."
In cases no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/638601, CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/639238, CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/639238,CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/639720,CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/64 1788 and CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/641759 -
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2021 & 02.09.2021 . FAA's order dated 06.08.2021 & 08.09.2021 held as under:-
"PD-PIU-Washim is directed to provide the requisite information after deposition of charges by the applicant Shri B.C. Reghiwale, as per RTI rules."
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/654870 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 17.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"1 ) As you have acquired the land from our gat no 60 at Sawarkhed ta Patur dt Akola and gat no 59, admeasuring 36 plus 45 Are , as shown in one layout map.
Then kindly inform me that who is a owner of this unknown land plot of nearly 6 g, plotted in between old road and gat no 59 in this map , near km no 42 , Which is indicated by red dot ?
2 ) Similarity inform me who is the Owner of the extra land shown of nearly 1g is plotted between gat no 60 and old road, at the below side of the map ?
3 ) please send 7/12 records of these extra land plots as above, which are plotted in the layout map, as you demanded in our case.6
4. ) When these two unknown lands are actually not existing there at all , then how you have certified in the map , on which wrong land is acquired by you ?
5 ) Whether there will be automatic increase in land acquired from our gat due to removal of these non existing plots added in the map ? And who will correct it now ? And pay us ?
6 ) Is it a fake and wrong map, on which you acquired the very costly land from us, by endorsing a fake certificate wrongly ?"
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 11.11.2021 stating as follows:-
"The information you requested is not clearly perceptible. So visit this office on any working day with prior intimation to this office for the search of information, which you needed. This office will provide you information which is held in the office."
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/654864 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 19.08.2021 seeking the following information:
"I want the certified and hard copies of the first 10 pages of the enclosed file of Project Report herewith.
This is published on the website of [email protected]. You may see this project report of NH by typing Akola Medshi project report in Google search.
Similarly, the following certificate may be imposed invariably on each page."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 17.09.2021 stating as follows:-
" This information is available with this office in the form of 10 Nos. pages.7
For providing requisite information in 10 No. of A4 pages, you are requested to deposit Rs. 70/- (10 x Rs. 2 per A4 page + Rs. 50 postal charges) in the form of IPO/DD payable to Regional Officer, NHAI RO-Nagpur."
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/656453 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 28.09.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "The details of an account of land acquired exactly adjacent to our survey no, for a length of 290 m of our survey no.
Here you acquired the total land strip 290x60 m That is a total of 177 Are. Therefore please submit this land details in the following format.
Column A - Serial no.
Column B - Name of landlord Column C - Total quantity of land acquired. Please include your existing land also in the format as per Govt record. Here you follow evidence act section 56 B and your published project report obtained from the website of [email protected], before sending information. Please note here the row in between km no 44 to 45 is 22 m only, where our land is situated.
2. If this sum comes short please inform me from where this land you encroached?
3. Date of possession of this land.
4. If this is incorrect, then please inform, who will correct it? Is it not your duty as a public servant?
Please note, I do not require your map, bar charts, or any other print, etc."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 28.10.2021 stating as follows:-
Point No. 1 to 4:- "The information sought by you is vague. Please submit required information in specific form, so that information may be provided."8
In cases no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/654870, CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/654864 and CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/656453 -
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal (s) dated 01.09.2021, 29.10.2021 & 16.11.2021. FAA's order dated 17.11.2021 held as under:-
" Appeal matter is related to Revenue Office. Concern Revenue officer and District Magistrate, Akola has already decided the matter. Nothing more needed in this matter."
CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/663608 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"We have got the Project report of National Highway no 161 of Akola Washim section by searching- Akola Medshi project report- in Google search.
The downloaded copy of the Project report is enclosed for your perusal and necessary action please. It is the Government publication of [email protected] You may see it by this searching. Therefore you are requested to kindly inform me
1. Whether the section 1.4.2 of row in this Project report is correct or not ?
2. Please send the certified copy of the above section 1.4.2 of this Project report, certifying that the information is correct to the best of my knowledge."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.12.2021 stating as follows:-
"The information sought by you is not available with this office. However, similar information in form of El Nos. pages of Executive Summary which is "Final Feasibility Report.' of the project held in this office and same has been already provided to you vide letter No, NHAI /PIN /WHM/RTI-Online Portal/ 2025/1545 Dtd. 22.10.2021."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2021. FAA's order dated 30.12.2021 held as under:-
9" PD-PIU-Washim has already provided the requisite information based on revenue records."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: R. G. Jawade, PD/PIU & CPIO present through video-conference.
In case no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/638601 -
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 10.08.2022 and submitted that a timely response has already been provided to the Appellant with a request to deposit Rs. 613/- as requisite photocopying charges for the relevant information; but no response was received from the Appellant. He further submitted that in compliance with FAA's order, the relevant documents were furnished to the Appellant on 21.06.2021.
In case no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/639238 & CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/639720- The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 10.08.2022 and submitted that a timely response has already been provided to the Appellant with a request to deposit Rs. 410/- as requisite photocopying charges for the relevant information; but no response was received from the Appellant. He further submitted that in compliance with FAA's order, the relevant documents were furnished to the Appellant on 21.06.2021.
In case no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/641788 -
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 10.08.2022 and submitted that a reply was provided to the Appellant on 24.08.2021 with a request to deposit Rs. 2060/- as requisite photocopying charges for the relevant information; but no response was received from the Appellant. He further submitted that in compliance with FAA's order relevant documents were furnished to the Appellant on 21.06.2021 in response to an earlier RTI Application on the same subject.10
In case no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/654870 -
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 10.08.2022 and submitted that considering the multiplicity of information sought in instant RTI Application, an opportunity of inspection of relevant records was offered to the Appellant; however, he did not avail of the said opportunity till date.
In case no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/654864 & CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/663608 -
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 10.08.2022 and submitted that upon of receipt of the requisite RTI fees from the Appellant, relevant information was furnished to him on 22.10.2021.
In case no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/656453- The CPIO reiterated the averred reply and FAA's order. He further empathized that the information sought by the Appellant was vague and unspecific therefore, he was replied accordingly .
In case no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/641759 -
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 10.08.2022 and submitted that a timely response has already been provided to the Appellant with a request to deposit Rs. 2,460/- as requisite photocopying charges for the relevant information; but no response was received from the Appellant till date. Therefore, no material information has been supplied to the Appellant.
The Commission remarked that during the hearing proceedings, one junior counsel from the Appellant's side claiming himself to be the proxy counsel for the Appellant's advocate informed that the main counsel of the Appellant was not well and therefore, not in a position to plead the case. To this, the Commission did not find it feasible to prolong the matter and in the interest of justice decided the case on merits based on the strength of material available on record.
Decision:11
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on records and after hearing submissions of the CPIO at great length finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought in the RTI Applications (mentioned above) as well as the replies of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarifications and interpretation to be drawn by the CPIO in reference to his speculative queries; to that extent the replies provided by the CPIO are in line with the letter and spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Adverting to the Appellant's insistence seeking clarification/explanation based on the survey reports, it shall be noted 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.
In this regard, his attention is 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, provided 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 Gandaiahvs 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:12
"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 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 13 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) Having observed as above and also considering the absence of the Appellant, the Commission finds no scope of further relief in the matter. However, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and categorically inform the applicants in future that the information sought for does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
The appeal (s) are 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 / 14