Central Information Commission
M G Devasahayam vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 20 April, 2021
CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859
In the matter of:
M. G. Devasahayam ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Gm (Hr /Admin.) National
Highways Authority of India,
No.G-5 & 6, Sector - 10,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI Application filed on : 04.01.2019
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First Appeal filed on : Not on Record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Complaint Received on : 14.03.2019
Date of Hearing : 09.04.2021
Page 1 of 15
CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859
The following were present:
Complainant: Smt. Priyadarshini, representative of the Complainant participated
in the hearing through intra-video conferencing from Central Information
Commission.
Respondent: Shri T. Velraj, CPIO and Dy. General Manager (Tech.) cum Project
Director participated in the hearing through intra-video conferencing from Central
Information Commission.
ORDER
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI Application dated 04.01.2019 seeking information on the following eighteen points:
"On 17.12.2003 NHAI floated REP for "Consultancy Services for Feasibility Study and Detailed Project Report for four/six Laning of Trivandrum to Kanyakumari Section of NH - 47 including Nagercoil to Kavalkinaru Section of NH-47B in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala under 10,000 km (NHDP-III Phase)". Task was "Design Consultancy for Upgradation of NH 47/Feasibility Report From Thiruvananthapuram to Kanyakumari and Package - II NH 47B From Nagercoil to Kavalkinaru."
But instead a totally new parallel highway which is also being called NH-47 is being constructed on a new alignment described as "Package II (km 43/000 to km 96/714 of NH 47, from Kerala/Tamilnadu Border to Kanyakumari) and km 0/000 to km 16/376 of NH 47B from Nagercoil to Kavalkinaru) -- distance 70.36 km includes 4.0 km of existing NH 47."
Field study had identified 70 irrigation tanks and 270 irrigation canals in project sites that was originally proposed to be land filled by NHAI. But the Deputy General Manager and the Project Director of NHAI for NH 47, Nagercoil in his Form 1 filing submitted for the extension of Environmental Clearance to the Ministry MOEF No. NHAI/PIU/Nagercoil/NH-47/EPC/2015/123 dated 24.7.2015, gave a statement that no water bodies will be affected by this new NH 47 from Kerala border to Kanyakumari. He gave an assurance that 'if any part of the data and information submitted is found to be false or misleading at any stage, the clearance given to the project can be revoked at the risk and cost of NHAI'. When this matter went before the National Green Tribunal, vide its order dated 15th June 2017 NGT directed construction of 34 major bridges, 43 minor bridges, Page 2 of 15 CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 82 Box culverts, and 91 hume-pipe culverts over the water bodies falling on the alignment. NGT order required complete realignment of this 'parallel NH 47' and in July 2017 NHAI floated a tender for "Consultancy Services for Preparation of DPR for Additional Cross Drainage structures across water tank areas i.e. Bridges, Culverts etc on the basis of Order of NGT & Revised MoEF Clearance"
for these sections of parallel NH-47." This did not materialise. ToR for both tenders were for "upgrading of the existing road to 4 lane configurations." Accordingly, work is going apace for the upgrading of existing NH-47 by constructing flyovers/overbridges at Marthandam and Parvathipuram (completed and open for traffic) and surveying/tendering for constructing flyovers/overbridges/underbridge in Nagercoil (Kottar and Ozhuginasery), Chungankadai, Thukalay and Kaliakavillai all costing around Rs. 2000 crores. While so, work is also in progress on the 70.36 km "Parallel NH-47" by acquiring thousands of acres of paddy and coconut fields; cutting over one lakh trees; land- filling dozens of ponds and waterbodies; demolishing hundreds of houses, structures and installations; ripping apart the landscape and sealing the springs at several places thereby destroying the aquifers; quarrying huge quantum of rocks and mining massive quantum of earth from prohibited areas. In this context, I seek the following information/documents under the RTI Act expeditiously:
1) Was this 'parallel NH-47' formally approved by Government of India/NHAI and Notification issued under Section 2 of the National Highway Authority Act? If so a true attested copy of the approval order and Notification may be provided.
2) If approved, has this 'parallel NH-47' project complied with some of the basic factors of Highway Planning -- Traffic volume survey; Topographic survey; willingness to pay survey; Engineering survey; soil & material investigation; social and environmental survey; constraint identification (geographic, demographic, economic, environmental, ecological, technical, institutional, political); involvement of stakeholders and consultation with them; feasibility studies - economic, financial, commercial, resources, environmental, legal, social, ecology, political, institutional and Operation & Management; land acquisition; project cost and availability of alternatives?
3) If so, is the project viable and justified from the social, economic, financial, ecological, environmental, demographic, geological and transportation points of view, particularly so when this section (Kanyakumari-
Trivandrum) already has one National Highway, two State Highways and a Railway Line?
Page 3 of 15CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859
4) Has compensation been paid to all the land owners? If so, what is the rate of compensation paid? Is there any discrimination in the quantum of compensation paid?
5) What was the budget amount allocated for the 'existing NH-47' and the 'parallel NH-47' projects? What has been the escalation so far? What is the Final budgetary allocation?
6) Who are the main contractors of these projects and what is the contract amount? Has there been escalation from the original amount and if so, how much?
7) Who are the sub-contractors? What was the procedure/process adopted for selecting the sub-contractors and what is the amount contracted to these sub-contracts?
8) How many trees were allowed to be cut by the NGT and how many were actually cut? Who were the contractors for this? Was there any inventory made of the trees before cutting? Were due approvals obtained from the District Collector? What was the amount of the contract and for what amount these trees were sold?
9) What was the quantum of stone quarried for this project and from where?
10) How much of sand/earth was mined for this project and from where?
11) Is the NHAI aware that the stone quarrying and sand mining are being done from the areas prohibited by the "directions under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986" issued by MoEF [Dated: 13.11.2013] which is a punishable offence? If so, what is being done? If not why not?
12) What is the quantum of cement that would be used on these projects and from where will it be sourced? What is the value?
13) NGT order dated 15th June 2017 makes it clear that Environmental Clearance for this project was obtained by telling lies and providing false information to MoEF. Has any disciplinary action been taken against the official responsible for this serious misconduct?
14) Have all the 34 major bridges, 43 minor bridges, 82 Box culverts, and 91 hume-pipe culverts over the water bodies falling on the alignment been constructed as directed by NGT? What was the amount sanctioned for these bridges/culverts and how much have been spent? For this purpose, has this 'parallel NH-47' been realigned?
Page 4 of 15CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859
15) Is NHAI aware that ripping apart the landscape and sealing the water- springs thereby destroying the aquifers, have grave ramifications for the water table of the south-eastern part of Kanyakumari District that could lead to drying-up of the rivers, ponds, wells and waterbodies? Was this anticipated? If so, what is being done? If not why not?
16) Is NHAI aware that ripping apart the landscape and sealing the water- springs thereby destroying the aquifers, have grave ramifications for the underground water movement in the north-western part of Kanyakumari District that could destabilise the Western Ghats mountain range endangering the dams like Pechiparai? Was this anticipated? If so, what is being done? If not why not?
17) Kanyakumari being a heavy rainfall District, ripping apart the landscape and digging ravines to lay this 'parallel NH-47' could cause massive floods and landslide diving monsoon. Was this anticipated? If so, what is being done? If not why not?
18) Now that it is clearly established that most part of the data and information submitted to get EC for the 'parallel NH-47' has been found to be false or misleading will the NHAI get the clearance of this project revoked "at its own risk and cost" and terminate all the contracts and works thereof forthwith?"
Having not received any information from the Respondent, the Complainant approached the Commission vide this instant Complaint.
Grounds for Complaint:
The Complainant filed a complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. Complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing: The representative of the Complainant stated that no information had been furnished by the Respondent. She requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to furnish correct and complete information to the Complainant. She further requested the Commission to accept the Complainant's Rejoinder submissions dated 08.04.2021.Page 5 of 15
CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 The Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application was received on 31.05.2019 and a reply was given to the Complainant on 29.06.2019. He further submitted that the information sought is related to the Writ Petition pending before the Hon'ble Madurai High Court Madurai Bench and that the Complainant may have to wait till the aforesaid Writ Petition is heard and disposed of. Upon queried by the Commission, he explained that any information provided to the Complainant at this juncture may have a detrimental effect on the aforesaid High Court case.
The Bench directed the CPIO to upload a copy of the aforesaid letter dated 29.06.2019 on Commission's web-portal, immediately upon conclusion of the instant hearing.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri T. Velraj, CPIO and Dy. General Manager (Tech.) cum Project Director, PIU-Nagercoil vide letter dated 14.03.2021, wherein he has stated as under:
"Shri M.G. Devasahayam, IAS (Retd.), House No. 21, Adhimoolam Street, Ponnappanagar Nagar, Nagercoil-629 004, Kanyakumari District has filed an online RTI Application vide Registration No. NHAIN/R/2019/00019, dt. 04.01.2019, addressed to the CPIO, NHAI HQ, New Delhi requesting certain details regarding the work of four laning of Kerala/TN Border to Kanyakumari section of NH-47 and Nagercoil to Kavalkinaru section of NH-47B.
2. The CPIO, NHAI HQ has forwarded the RTI Application through online to the Project Director, PIU, Nagercoil on 31.05.2019.
3. In the meanwhile, the RTI Applicant along with 2 others, filed PIL in WP(MD) No. 4433/2019 before the Hon'ble Madural Bench of Madras High Court on 19.02.2019 raising more or less the same contentions made in the RTI Application, against the Respondents namely the MoRTH, the NHAI, MoEF&CC, District Collector, Kanniyakumari with a prayer for issue of Mandamus or any other Writ or order refraining the Respondents from any manner undertaking any works towards construction of the said work.
4. The 3rd Respondent, i.e. Project Director, PIU, Nagercoil, filed the detailed counter affidavit on behalf of NHAI. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Page 6 of 15 CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 Court by its order dated 26.02.2019 ordered issue of notice and prohibited NHAI from filling up the Putheri and Nulikulam ponds and other water bodies in the process of laying the road, until further orders.
5. On the basis of the interim direction given by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) on 26.02.2019 in WP (MD) No. 4433 of 2019 the RTI Applicant along with two other Writ Petitioners has sent an Advocate notice on 25.05.2019 to PIU, Nagercoil calling upon PD, PIU, Nagercoil to comply with the orders dated 26.02.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and discontinue the filling up of Ponds and other water bodies. The PD, PIU Nagercoil sent a reply to the above Notice vide his letter dated 25.05.2019 stating that the interim order of Hon'ble High Court of respected in letter and spirit and denied the allegations made in the Advocate Notice.
6. On receipt of the RTI online Application on 31.05.2019, the information sought for by the Applicant was examined and it was found that the issues raised in the RTI Application were more or less the same as the issues raised in the Writ Petition No. 4433 of 2019 field by the RTI Applicant and two others. As such, PD, PIU, Nagercoil in reply addressed to Regional Office, Madurai vide Lr. No.1169, dt. 10.06.2019 stating that, as the PIL in WP No. 4433/2019 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench), it is not necessary to provide the information sought by the Applicant since any contrary reply is given, the same may affect the pending PIL in the said WP. A copy of the said letter was uploaded by PD, PIU, Nagercoil on the RTI Portal on 29.06.2019.
7. In this regard, it is submitted that since the matter is sub-judice before the Constitutional Court and as per section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005, the information sought for by the Applicant is exempted from disclosure in the larger interest of the public.
8. It is further submitted that the sum and substance of the contents of the RTI Application made before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi and the averments and certain allegations made by the same RTI Applicant in WP (MD) No. 4433 of 2019 filed before the Madural Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras are more or less the same but drafted in a different syntax, and the same is pending adjudication. Hence, it is respectfully submitted that the RTI Applicant may be advised to await the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench). The copy of the Affidavit filed by the Project Director, PIU, Nagercoil are enclosed for kind perusal and appraisal of the facts of the case.
9. In this regard, it is also relevant to submit that as per the directions of Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) vide its order dated 14.09.2016 in a batch of applications filed by Dr. R.S. Lal Mohan and others Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) has undertaken re-Page 7 of 15
CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 appraisal of the project on the basis of the reports of inspection of the project area by the Experts of MoEF&CC and has granted fresh Environmental Clearance (EC) vide its letter dated 15.06.2017, with certain conditions, especially with regard to the measures to be NHAI for preservation of water bodies falling with the project area (Copy of the EC dated 15.06.2017 is enclosed). Accordingly, NHAI has taken sincere efforts to comply with the above conditions in the interest of protection of environment, ecology, water bodies, flora & fauna, etc. of the project area.
10. Under the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble CIC may be pleased to accept the written submission made by the Project Director, PIU, Nagercoil & CPIO and direct the RTI Applicant to await the outcome of the Writ Petition No. 4433 of 2019 filed by the RTI Applicant and two others in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench). A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Complainant vide letter dated 08.04.2021, wherein he has stated as under:
1. In his written submission made on 14.03.3021, Project Director, PIU, NHAI, Nagercoil has stated that my application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 sent to the CPIO, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi on 04.01.2019 was sent to him for disposal on 31.05.2019, i.e, nearly 4 months after the RTI application was filed. This itself is serious violation of Section 6 of the RTI Act wherein CPIOs/SPIOs are mandated to furnish the information asked for within one month of the application.
2. Only after the mandatory period for furnishing the information by CPIO was over W.P (MD) No. 4433 of 2019 was filed before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 8.2.2019. This Writ Petition sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents therein to refrain from in any manner undertaking any work towards construction of a 'parallel NH047'in the garb of upgrading the existing NH-47 (now renumbered as NH-66). However, under the RTI application various other information regarding the viability of the project, compensation paid to the land owners, the final budgetary allocation for the project, and details of the contractors and sub-contractors of the project have been asked for. As such while both concern the same subject matter, they do not in any way impinge on each other.
3. The stand taken by the Project Director, PIU, Nagercoil and the CPIO, that the information sought for by the applicant was more or less the same as the issues raised in W.P. (MD) No. 4433 of 2019 and that it is not necessary to provide the information, since it may affect the pending writ petition is erroneous and contrary to law. In this regard, it is submitted that Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, confers an explicit right on a person to Page 8 of 15 CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 make an application in writing or through electronic means, for obtaining information from the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority.
Therefore, the Applicant has a statutory right to seek information from the CPIO, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi, and filing of the Writ Petition is in no way an impediment, for the said authority to provide the information. In any event, the application seeking information was filed before filing of the said Writ Petition.
4. Further, the High Court vide its order dated 26.02.2019, has not passed any direction whatsoever barring the CPIO, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi or any other public authority, from providing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. As such, the Writ Petition filed is a separate proceeding, and it does not bar any authority from providing information sought for.
5. The contention of the Project Director, PIU, Nagercoil and the CPIO that the matter is sub-judice before the Constitutional Court, and as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information sought for is exempted from disclosure in the larger interest of the public is misplaced. Section 8(1)(h) of the Act only exempts the authority from disclosure of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In the present case, the disclosure of information will in no way impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution of offenders. Further, the authority ought to show that the information not supplied would impede the investigation. Reliance is place on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. Reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1607. The relevant extract is as follows:
"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemption under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right must therefore is to b e strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information."Page 9 of 15
CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 Further, in B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer 2011 (125) DRJ 508, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as follows:
"19. ... The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would impede the investigation......"
6. Under the above facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the Hon'ble CIC may be pleased to reject the written submission made by the Project Director, PIU-NHAI, Nagercoil and direct the CPIO, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi to provide the information requested for and also initiate disciplinary action against the guilty official and impose exemplary penalty as provided in the law.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the CPIO, NHAI, New Delhi has taken nearly 4 months to forward the present RTI Application to the concerned CPIO. The Commission views this adversely and expresses severe displeasure against the concerned CPIO for not adhering to the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission also observes that the CPIO cum Project Director, PIU-Nagercoil has replied to the Complainant on 29.06.2019, which is within the stipulated time- frame as specified in the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission further observes that the CPIO has erred in denying the information sought in the instant RTI Application without invoking any exemption clause of the RTI Act. However, in the absence of any material on record to suggest mala fide or deliberate intention on the part of the CPIO in denying the information, Commission is not inclined to take any penal action in the present matter. Instead, CPIO vide his written Page 10 of 15 CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 submission has provided a reasoning in his wisdom for justifying the denial of information. Therefore, the denial cannot be deemed as arbitrary. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012, wherein it was held as under:
"61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed ..."
Similarly, observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bhagar Singh vs. CIC & Ors. [W.P.(C) 3114/2007] is also relevant to point out here as it was held as under:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show that lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the denial of information is not arbitrary but with a cogent reasoning, which is squarely covered by a similar rationale relied upon by a full bench of the Commission in the matter of C. Seetharamaiah vs. Commissionerate of Customs & Central Excise [File No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238], which is the context of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
Page 11 of 15CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 "37. ...and what was more any disclosure of this information to the appellant at this stage would undoubtedly cause injury to the CBI's presentation of the case n behalf of the prosecution before the Trial Court. Forcing CBI to provide to the appellant evidence, records and documents it otherwise would not provide to him or provide to him only through the directive of the Trial Court, would have the effect of interfering with the CBI's right to marshall evidence and to present it in the manner or in the sequence, which in its judgment, would be necessary to prove the guilt of the accused. This is CBI's right as the complaint before the Trial Court, which would be seriously compromised if the accused were allowed to force it to give out information and documents through the RTI Act.
38. The central point of this line of argument is that no attempt to harm the integrity of the prosecution proceeding before the Court as already laid down in several laws of the land, should be allowed to succeed by casting on the public authority or the prosecuting agency obligations which criminal and evidence laws do not assign to them. No public interest is served by such actions. On the contrary, public interest is positively harmed when interested parties are given the privilege of interrogating a prosecuting agency about its actions vis-à-vis that party through an RTI proceedings when the prosecution before a Trial Court is already extant."
In strict sense, it may be out of place to read the exemption of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act into the facts of the instant case but when there are two conflicting interests, the preamble of the RTI Act lends clarity and effectively adds perspective which reads as under:
"...
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal:"
Further, the Commission finds it relevant to emphasize on the nature of the conflicting interest in this case if disclosure were to be allowed of the documents based on which Respondent office is to defend their case, and by any measure case of the Respondent office is hampered by such disclosure, invariably the litigation will continue in the form of further appeals and reviews sought by the department.
Page 12 of 15CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 It is common knowledge that when government bodies are brought into litigation or vice versa when government initiates litigation, it is at the cost of the public exchequer. It is in this context that in the recent years, discussions have surfaced in public domain regarding the bane of the government being the biggest litigant in the country. This is where the National Litigation Policy came to be formulated by the Ministry of Law and Justice, to bring down the instances where government is party to litigation. Although, in the instant case, the litigation has been initiated by the Complainant, fact remains that if the Respondent office is compelled to disclose the material based on which it seeks to pursue its defense, the case will invariably lead to a state of limbo or result in a scenario where the Respondent office may initiate further litigation. Keeping in view of the totality of circumstances discussed above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the denial of information by the CPIO. Moreover, the Complainant has pressed for information from the Respondent in the instant case. In this regard, the Commission relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in the matter of Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur, wherein it was held as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant.
30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section Page 13 of 15 CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859
20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.
...
...
37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
With the above observations, the instant Complaint is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Complaint, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 19.04.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 14 of 15 CIC/NHAIN/C/2019/111859 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) / Chief General Manager (Hr/Admn. I) National Highways Authority of India No.G-5 & 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) /Gm (Hr /Admin.) National Highways Authority of India, No.G-5 & 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075.
3. Shri M. G. Devasahayam Page 15 of 15