Central Information Commission
Hirak Jyoti Saikia vs National Highways Infrastructure ... on 23 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NHICL/A/2024/127696
Shri Hirak Jyoti Saikia ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Highways Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd(NHIDCL)
Date of Hearing : 17.07.2025
Date of Decision : 17.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.03.2024
PIO replied on : 06.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 29.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 28.05.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 24.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
1. "What is the total consumption of Bitumen in both the packages (Pkg 1 & Pkg 2)?
2. What is the source of Bitumen in both the above mentioned Packages?
3. What is the total Quantity of Bitumen purchased from different vendors for completion of the packages?"
The Dy. General Manager (P) PMU-Tezpur, NHIDCL vide letter dated 06.04.2024 replied as under:-
1. "The Total theoretical requirement of Bitumen as per the assessment made by this office are 2207 Mt. for Package - I (Nagaon to Teliagaon) and 1969 Mt. for package -11 (Teliagaon to Rangagara) respectively.
2. The approved Source of Bitumen is Mathura Refinery for Package - I(Nagaon to Teliagaon) and IOCL, Haldia refinery for Package - II (Teliagaon to Rangagara).
3. Since the mentioned packages was under EPC Mode, hence the obligation for procurement of Construction materials lies with the EPC Contractor."
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 28.05.2024 stated as under:-
5. "The 'Appeal" has been examined and the findings/decision of the FAA are as below:
Information Sought under First Findings/Decision of the FAA Appeal Query 1. The subject contract packages are The respective authority has Engineering Procurement and failed to provide the actual Construction contracts. Therefore, consumption of bitumen in both NHIDCL is not obligated to maintain the the packages. record of actual consumption of bitumen. Whereas, CPIO has already provided the total theoretical requirement of Bitumen for both the packages which also might not have been provided in light of OM dated 10.07.2008 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India (copy enclosed). Therefore, FAA does not find any legitimate ground to admit this appeal.
Query 2. In reply to this query, CPIO has replied The respective authority has that "Since the mentioned packages failed to provide the actual was under EPC Mode, hence the quantity of bitumen purchased obligation for procurement of from different vendors for the construction materials lies with the EPC completion of the packages. Contractor."
The reply of the CPIO seems to be in order and FAA does not find any legitimate ground to admit this appeal.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Vinayak Kumar, GM- participated in the hearing. The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their record has been duly provided to the Appellant. He further stated that since the packages relating to which information has been sought was under EPC Mode, hence the obligation for procurement of construction materials lies with the EPC Page 2 Contractor. He stated that total theoretical requirement of Bitumen for both the packages has been duly provided by the PIO.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)