Central Information Commission
Ravneshwar Sharma vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 7 January, 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/2020/112901
Ravneshwar Sharma ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highway Authority Of
India, RTI Cell, House of Mr.
S.N. Mistua Diggi West,
Professor's Colony Ward
No.10, Darbhanga,
Bihar-846004. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/01/2022
Date of Decision : 06/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/11/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 09/01/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/03/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.11.2019 seeking the following information;1
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.01.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: Represented by Abhay Kumar, Deputy Manager present through audio-conference.
The Appellant while narrating his grievance regarding the alleged misconduct of police authorities at the Toll Plaza stated that this incident led him to filing of instant RTI Application and in turn the Second Appeal. He further expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that no reply and information has been received by him till date.
The Rep. of CPIO submitted that a factual reply has already been provided to the Appellant on 28.11.2019 intimating him that the concerned CCTV footage records have been weeded out from their office records.
To a query from the Commission, the Appellant denied the receipt of the averred reply. In response to it, the Rep. of CPIO at the behest of the Commission agreed to resend a copy of the same to the Appellant via email at [email protected].
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the PIO as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as 2 per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief in the matter.
Now, considering the hearing proceedings the CPIO is directed to resend a copy of his reply dated 28.11.2019 along with enclosures, free of cost to the Appellant through speed post and also via email. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Further, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue his grievance through administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) 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 / 3