Central Information Commission
Mr.Parbhati Ram Joon vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 10 November, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000758
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000759
& F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000760
Dated, the 10 November, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri P.R. Joon
Respondent : National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
s These three secondappeals were taken up for hearing on 04.11.2010, as a bunch, following Commission's notice dated 13.10.2010. Appellant was absent. Respondents were represented by Shri V.K.Rajawat, General Manager (Tech) and Shri A.K. Singh, Project Director.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000758:
2. Appellant's case is that despite Appellate Authority's order to provide him all information relating to his RTIapplication dated 26.03.2010, CPIO provided to the appellant incomplete information.
Parts of information regarding buffer strips, culvert, distance from the nearest junction of several retail outlets/petrol pumps was not provided.
3. Respondents stated that the information, which was held by the public authority, was provided to the appellant in compliance with Appellate Authority's order dated 10.06.2010. The information, which was not disclosed to the appellant, was not held by the public authority. If this information were to be given, public authority would be made to collect the information from the field after physically inspecting records and CIC_AT_A_2010_000758_M_45643.doc Page 1 of 4 physically verifying assets, in relation to which the information was sought ― an act, which they were not obligated under the RTI Act to perform.
4. I am in agreement with the CPIO that so long as he has provided to the appellant the information as held by the public authority, he has satisfied the requirements both of Section 2(f) and Section 2(j) of the RTI Act. The public authority was not required to generate information for the appellant's convenience.
5. This is covered by the ratio of Commission's decision in Sanjay Bhaty Vs. Kandla Port Trust; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000622; Date of Decision: 29.10.2010.
6. Appeal fails. Closed.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000759:
7. It is the contention of the appellant that despite Appellate Authority's order dated 30.03.2010, CPIO did not provide any information to him for the queries included in his RTIapplication dated 15.02.2010.
8. It was stated by the respondents during the hearing that it was true that no response was provided to the appellant following the Appellate Authority's order dated 30.03.2010. This was wholly unintentional and was in fact an error as CPIO linked the reply furnished by him in another appeal (corresponding to appellant's RTIapplication dated 22.02.2010) to the present appeal and assumed that that reply covered the present one as well. They pointed out that respondents had been diligently replying to the appellant's all RTIapplications ― and there were several ― and that error occurred only in this petition, proves the point that this was exceptional and not intentional.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000758_M_45643.doc Page 2 of 4
9. Given the circumstances of nondisclosure of the information in this petition, I find the explanation of the respondents/CPIO credible. There shall be no further proceedings in this matter.
10. I have perused the RTIapplication of the appellant dated 15.02.2010. It is noticeable that the 10 queries, which are included in this petition, cover a diverse range of information such as details of the projects completed in Gurgaon, particulars of private vehicles hired, expenditure on security, housekeeping, stores, petty officeworks, furniture and fittings, watersupply, annual maintenance, repair of computers, repair, upkeep and maintenance of furniture, serving of tea, coffee, snacks, among others. Commission has held in its decision in Rajendra Singh Vs. CBI; Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00967; Date of Decision: 19.06.2009 that RTI Act did not authorize an applicant to add in the same petition queries on multiple issues and subjects. One application should contain either one query or query in regard to one category of subject.
11. Given the ratio of the above order of the Commission, despite Appellate Authority's order for disclosure of the information, it is my view that this petition cannot be allowed.
12. However, respondents are willing to provide to the appellant the information as requested by him. Given the type of queries, the best course of disclosure of information would be to allow him to inspect the records and documents held in regard to his several queries.
13. It is accordingly directed that on a day and time to be intimated to the appellant within three weeks, he shall be allowed to inspect the documents and records as held by the public authority in relation to appellant's queries, from which he shall be allowed to take such copies as he may choose. In view of the fact that there have been delays in CIC_AT_A_2010_000758_M_45643.doc Page 3 of 4 providing him the information, the copies of the documents selected by him shall be provided to him free of charge.
14. Appeal accordingly decided.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000760:
15. According to this secondappeal petition of the appellant, despite Appellate Authority's order dated 22.03.2010, no information relating to appellant's RTIapplication dated 22.02.2010 has been provided to him by CPIO.
16. It was pointed out during the hearing that CPIO had complied with Appellate Authority's order dated 22.03.2010 and communication dated 23.04.2010 was sent to the appellant by him covering the entire range of the queries in the RTIapplication.
17. It is directed that CPIO may send another copy of the reply to the appellant along with a copy of the evidence about the dispatch of the information on 23.04.2010.
18. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
19. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CIC_AT_A_2010_000758_M_45643.doc Page 4 of 4