Central Information Commission
Madan Lal vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 17 August, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal Nos. CIC/YA/A/2016/002402/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/002403/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/002411/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2016/002412/MP. CIC/YA/A/2016/002413/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/002414/MP
Appellant : Shri Madan Lal, Bilaspur.
Public Authority : National Highways Authority of India, Simla
Date of Hearing : 14th August, 2017.
Date of Decision : 16th August, 2017
Present :
Appellant : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate assisted the
appellant through VC.
Respondent : Lt. Col. Yogesh Chandra, GM & Project Director at
CIC.
ORDER
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2016/002402/MP
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 20.01.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Shimla; seeking information in response to his earlier RTI application replied vide NHAI's letter No. 11001.21.2015 RTI.PIU. Shimla.1642 dated 14.01.2016, to find out the office where the information was available.
1.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.02.2016 informed the appellant that information sought was not available. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 22.03.2016. The FAA vide order dated 19.04.2016 held that the appellant had sought information regarding the Project of 4-laning Kiratpur to Ner Chowk Section HH-21 and the said stretch had been transferred to PD, PIU, Mandi. The FAA directed the CPIO, NHAI, PIU, Mandi to re- examine the RTI application and provide information directly to the appellant.
11.3. Not quite satisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 28.05.2016 on the grounds that the CPIO, NHAI, PIU, Mandi had not provided information in spite of the directions of the FAA.
1.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant's representative stated that the appellant had sought information in response to his earlier RTI application and the CPIO replied that no information was available. The respondent CPIO stated that the information as sought by the appellant was not available.
1.5 The Commission observes that the appellant had sought information as a sequel to his earlier RTI application from which the specific issues on which he required information were not clear. The appellant may like to file a fresh self-contained RTI application for seeking specific information to enable the respondent authority to reply keeping the provisions of the RTI Act in view. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2016/0024.03/MP
2. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 24.01.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Shimla; seeking information in response to his earlier RTI application replied vide NHAI's letter No. 11011/21/2013/RTI/PIU/1127 dated 10.10.2014, seeking to know whether there was any provision for preparing field book or tatima as per NHAI's Land Acquisition Act, 1956.
2.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.02.2016 informed the appellant that information sought was not available. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 22.03.2016. The FAA vide order dated 19.04.2016 held that the appellant had sought information regarding the Project of 4-laning Kiratpur to Ner Chowk Section HH-21 and the said stretch had been transferred to PD, PIU, Mandi. The FAA directed the CPIO, NHAI, PIU, Mandi to re- examine the RTI application and provide information directly to the appellant.
2.3. Not quite satisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal dated 28.05.2016 before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO, NHAI, PIU, Mandi had not provided information in spite of the directions of the FAA.
2.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant's representative stated that the CPIO had not provided any information to the appellant. He further stated that the land acquired has to be divided into two parts and one part goes to the NHAI and the second part remains with the owner of the land. The respondent CPIO stated that the land in question had been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh and in compliance with the directions of the FAA the CPIO, NHAI, Mandi vide letter dated 17.05.2016 requested the Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur to provide information to the appellant and a copy endorsed to the appellant. He further stated to the NHAI Act, 1956 was available on the website of NHAI i.e. nhai.org.
22.5 The Commission observes that the respondent CPIO, NHAI, Mandi had taken appropriate action in compliance with the directions of the FAA. The Commission holds that the RTI Act is not mandated for redressal of grievances. The appellant may like to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2016/002411/MP & CIC/YA/A/2016/002414
3. The appellant submitted two RTI applications dated 19.01.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), New Delhi & Shimla; seeking copy of approval to IL & FS Company regarding project of Kiratpur to Ner Chowk Section HH-21 through two points.
3.2. The CPIO vide letters dated 09.02.2016 and 01.03.2016 denied the information under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 22.03.2016. The FAA vide order dated 04.04.2016 held that the CPIO, NHAI, Shimla already replied to the appellant and further held that in between the said stretch had been transferred to PD, PIU, Mandi and directed the CPIO, PIU, Mandi to provide further information to the appellant.
3.3. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 28.05.2016 on the grounds that the CPIO, NHAI, PIU, Mandi had not provided information in spite of the directions of the FAA.
3.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondent stated that in compliance with the directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letters dated 09.05.2016 and 20.05.2016 informed the appellant that IL & FS approval and Detailed Project Report (DPR) were available on the website of NHAI. The appellant's representative stated that IL & FS approval were not available on NHAI's website. He further stated that no information on point 2 whether DPR was essential was provided by the respondent. The CPIO confirmed that IL & FS approval were available on the NHAI website.
3.5 Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission holds that information sought at point 1 was available on the website of NHAI i.e. nhai.org. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide instructions for preparation of DPR, if available, to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. These appeals are disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2016/002412/MP
4. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.07.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Shimla seeking copy of the instructions given by Dy. Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam Circle Nangal Township along with its date; the action taken against IL & FS Company for illegally dumping soil during the construction of Kiratpur to Ner Chowk Section HH-21 through three points.
34.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.08.2015 informed the appellant that no instructions from Dy. Chief Engineer, Bkakra Dam was received by NHAI in response to points 1 and 2 and also informed the appellant that the allegations against the company were baseless. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 07.09.2015. The FAA vide order dated 19.04.2016 held that the CPIO, NHAI, Shimla already replied to the appellant and further held that in between the said stretch had been transferred to PD, PIU, Mandi and directed the CPIO, PIU, Mandi to provide requisite information to the appellant.
4.3. Not quite satisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 28.05.2016 on the grounds that the CPIO, NHAI, PIU, Mandi had not provided information in spite of the directions of the FAA.
4.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant's representative stated that the CPIO did not provide copy of the instructions given by the Dy. Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam. The respondent CPIO stated that NHAI wrote to the Dy. Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam to provide a copy of the instructions issued, if any, regarding illegal dumping of soil who confirmed that they had not issued any instructions in this regard. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.05.2016, in compliance with the directions of the FAA, informed the appellant that Dy. Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam had not issued any instructions to the NHAI. He further stated that the appellant had moved the matter before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in this regard, which was also disposed of by the NGT.
4.5. The Commission observes that the respondent authority had appropriately responded to the appellant. No action is called for on the part of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2016/002413/MP
5. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 21.01.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Shimla seeking basis of demarcation of land acquired along with copies of documents for construction of 4-laning of Kiratpur to Ner Chowk Section NH-21.
5.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.02.2016 informed the appellant that no information was available. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 22.03.2016. The FAA vide order dated 19.04.2016 held that the CPIO, NHAI, Shimla already replied to the appellant and further held that in between the said stretch had been transferred to PD, PIU, Mandi and directed the CPIO, PIU, Mandi to provide required information to the appellant.
5.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 28.05.2016 on the grounds that the CPIO, NHAI, PIU, Mandi had not provided information in spite of the directions of the FAA.
45.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant's representative stated that he sought information regarding the basis for demarcation of land. The NHAI had constructed the road beyond demarcation. The respondent CPIO stated that the demarcation was being done by the Land Acquisition Officer of the State Government of H.P. He further stated that the CPIO vide letter dated 17.05.2016, in compliance with the directions of the FAA, forwarded the RTI application to the CPIO, Land Acquisition Officer, Government of HP for providing information directly to the appellant and copy was endorsed to the appellant. The appellant stated that he did not receive copy of letter dated 17.05.2016.
5.5. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission observes that the CPIO had complied with the directions of the FAA. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide a copy of letter dated 17.05.2016 addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer, Government of HP, to the appellant with two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar. Address of the parties:
Shri Madan Lal, The CGM/FAA,
S/O Shri Hari Ram, National Highways Authority of India,
Village: Bagtheru, PO: Bhager, Regional Office: Chandigarh,
Tehsil: Ghumarwin, Bay No. 35-38, Sector-4,
Dist. Bilaspur (H.P) Panchkula-134112
The Central Public Information Officer,
National Highways Authority of India,
PIU-Shimla, House No. 20A,
Jakhoo Housing Board Colony,
Near Ram Chandra Chowk,
Shimla-171002
The Central Public Information Officer,
National Highways Authority of India,
PIU-Mandi, Above Central Bank of India,
VPO: Gutkar, Tehsil Sadar,
Distt. Mandi-175021.
5