Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Yateendra Singh Jafa vs Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways on 12 July, 2024

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/MORTH/A/2024/108317

Shri Yateendra Singh Jafa                                        ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways                  ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                          :   04.07.2024
Date of Decision                         :   04.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           26.09.2023
PIO replied on                    :            - -
First Appeal filed on             :           01.11.2023
First Appellate Order on          :            - -
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :           13.03.2024

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

1. Did your Ministry receive my aforementioned letter?

2. If yes, then was it put up before Hon'ble Minister of State?

3. If yes, then what were his directions?

4. If this complaint was forwarded to any other official in your Ministry/NHAI, then the name & designation of that official be furnished?

5. Has that official inquired into my complaint?

6. If yes, then please furnish a copy of his report?

7. What action has been taken against unauthorized private persons who are collecting commissions for recharging Fastags?

8. Have NHAI field officials been found to be in collusion with these private persons?

Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.11.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written note in response to the First Appeal has been received from the public authority stating as under:

That the RTI application was filed by appellant/applicant in the office of CPIO/ Under Secretary (Vigilance), Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.12.2023 transferred the said RTI Application of Applicant to CGM (Tech) & Nodal Officer (RTI) NHAI. As the grievances of Applicant were pertaining to Brijghat Toll Plaza, Near Garhmukteshwar, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, the RTI application was forwarded to concern Regional Office of NHAI and thereafter to Concern PIU i.e. PIU- Moradabad on 16.12.2023. That the PIU- Moradabad vide letter dated 04.01.2024 wrote to Authorised Signatory M/s IRB Hapur Moradabad Tollway Pvt. Ltd. and also a copy of same was also sent to Team Leader M/s SA Infrastructure Consultants Pvt Ltd., Moradabad as well as to applicant herein. The Applicant herein was informed by PIU-Moradabad that instructions have been given to Authorised Signatory M/s IRB Hapur Moradabad Tollway Pvt. Ltd. to remove illegal elements around the toll plaza and also ensure to all load users by an adequate display that a recharge facility is available in the toll plaza office premises. PIU- Moradabad Informed the applicant within stipulated time in exercise of its due diligence. This shows the seriousness with which the application was treated by the project director - PIU Moradabad. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Sohan Petwal representative/CPIO was present during hearing.

Respondent present during hearing stated that action had been taken on the Appellant's letter and information in this regard has been duly conveyed to the Appellant, and also submitted before the Commission.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the Respondent present for hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had furnished appropriate action taken report in response to the First Appeal of the Appellant. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case. In the given circumstances, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

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 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)