Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.Aseem Takyar vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 29 May, 2012

                        Central Information Commission
             Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, 
                     Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
                    Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

                                                   Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000184
                                                                Dated: 29.05.2012

Name of Appellant                     :     Shri Aseem Takyar

Name of Respondent                    :    National Highways Authority of India,
                                      New Delhi.

Date of Hearing                       :     21.05.2012

                                          ORDER

Shri Aseem Takyar, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 23.8.2011 before the Commission against the respondent National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Panchkula for not providing information to his RTI-application dated 22.6.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 21.05.2012. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri R.K. Kaundal, GM, NHAI, PIU, Ambala, Shri Dev Raj, CGH, NHAI, RO - Chandigarh and Shri S.S. Gaharwar, GM, NHAI, Headquarters.

2. The appellant had filed an application dated 22.6.2011 under the provisions of the RTI Act, in which he sought certified copies of the structural drawing, elevation drawing, section drawing, nomenclature and schedule of items, quantities of all planned 'FOB' 'Foot Over Bridge' in respect of NH-1 Section within Panipat to Jalandhar. The CPIO vide letter NO.11028/NHAI/AMB/1247 dated 4.7.2011 denied information under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act.

3. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first-appeal on 18.7.2011 before the FAA. Shri Dev Raj, CGM, Regional Office, NHAI, Chandigarh vide his order No. NHAI/RO/CHD/11016/RTI/595 dated 29.7.2011 informed the appellant that the information sought by him cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, as the same are to be considered as trade secret and intellectual property of Concessionaire. In this connection the attention of the appellant was drawn to the order of Delhi High Court relating to disclosure of Zamrudpur Metro Pillar design.

4. During the hearing the respondent submit that Six Laning of Panipat- Jalandhar Section on NH-1 from km. 96.000 to Km. 387.100 is being executed as BOT (Toll) Project on DBFO (design, build, Finance and Operate) Pattern. The concession period of the subject Project is 15 years inclusive of construction period from appointed date i.e. 9.5.2009 and the Concessionaire is responsible for Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Project Highway as per Article 3 of the Concession Agreement. In the case of Metro Pillar Design of Jamrudpur of DMRC as referred in FAA's order dated 29.7.2011, the structural design is the property of the DMRC. However, in case of Foot Over Bridge being constructed on NH-1 of Panipat-Jalandhar Section through the Concession Agreement between the Concessionaire and NHAI, the Structural Designs and the other details have been evolved by the Concessionaire, hence, are the property of the Concessionaire. In the case of BOT Projects, the Concessionaire is responsible for development, design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the Project facilities during the entire concession period. Larger public interest is served through operational and maintenance of the Project facilities in accordance with Concession Agreement. The Geometric and Structural Designs of various Project facilities such as FOB, are developed strictly in accordance with standards and specifications laid down under IRC Guidelines as per the Concession Agreement and would not warrant its disclosure, as no larger public interest is involved.

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the information as sought for by the appellant is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the reply of the respondent.

(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:

Shri Aseem Takyar, Plot No. 144, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon-122016 (Haryana) The CPIO, National Highways Authority of India, No. 17-L, Model Town, Ambala City-134003 (Haryana) The First Appellate Authority, National Highways Authority of India, Regional Office Chandigarh, Bays No. 35-38, Sector-4, Panchkula.

The General Manager (Tech) P&H, National Highways Authority of India, G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.