Central Information Commission
Kiran Rinya vs North Eastern Electric Power ... on 2 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NEEPC/A/2024/608726
Kiran Rinya .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
North Eastern Electric Power
Corporation Ltd., Brookland
Compound, Lower New Colony,
Shillong - 793003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.06.2025
Date of Decision : 02.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 20.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 13.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Subject matter of information required: Tato-II Hydro Electric Project, Arunachal Pradesh.
Details of Information Required:Page 1 of 9
1. Furnish copy of compensation estimate as per form-v of LARR Act 2013
2. Furnish copy of award letter issued by Deputy Commissioner
3. Furnish copy of compensation estimate forwarded to the user agency for acceptance
4. Furnish copy of Draft compensation estimate for acquiring the land as per the First Schedule of LARR Act 2013.
5 Furnish copy of Schedule of Rates adopted in determining the estimate.
6. List of all the affected land owners along with quantum of compensation to be received."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.12.2023 stating as under:
"The information sought cannot be provided by NEEPCO under the provisions of section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being third party information. The information may be had from the concerned Public Authority of the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2024. The FAA order is Not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
5. The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ms. Angelica Poshna, GM (Tech)/CPIO present through videoconference.
6. A written submission dated 23.06.2025 filed by the Respondent is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"3.1 That without prejudice to the above, it is stated that the applicant applied for the information vide application dated 13.12.2023, to which, reply was furnished to the applicant on 20.12.2023. It is pertinent to state that at the time of furnishing of reply dated 20-12- 2023, the Government approval for land compensation estimate for acquisition of land was not received by NEEPCO Ltd. It is stated that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Land Management Page 2 of 9 Department vide letter dated 29.11.2023 had only permitted the Deputy Commissioner, Shi Yomi District to Continue the land acquisition process which was concluded on 21.12.2023. Accordingly, as per proposal submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Shi Yomi District, the Govt. of Arunachal vide letter dated 04.01.2024 had accorded approval for disbursement of Land compensation where the factors to be considered for calculation of Land compensation estimate was indicated. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Shi Yomi District, vide letter dated 05.01.2024, had calculated the land compensation amount based on Govt. approval dated 04.01.2024 and submitted to NEEPCO Ltd for release of Compensation amount for subsequent disbursement to the respective land owner. As per letter dated 05.01.2024, the Deputy Commissioner, Shi Yomi District had only submitted the abstract of total land compensation to be released to the District Authority and the DC did not provide NEEPCO the details of individuals Land award. From the above facts, it is clear that the documents as sought by the applicant was not available with NEEPCO at the time of furnishing of the reply on 20.12.2023.
In this context, it is also pertinent to state herein that 12 nos. of Land owners had approached the Hon'ble High court of Guwahati, Itanagar Bench vide Case No. WP(C)/208/2024 where NEEPCO was also made party for issue of direction for providing of individual Land Award etc. Upon hearing the parties, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court directed to the effect that "The petitioner herein is directed to approach the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on 07.08.2024 for being furnished with the copy of the award and the Deputy Commissioner shall also inform the petitioner about the manner in which the said award was so published and the matter was accordingly disposed of. In view of the aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, it is writ large that the applicant should approach the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district to collect the Land compensation award details etc. Copies of the Letter dated 29-11-2023, 04-01-2024 and 05-01-2024 and the High Court order are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE -A, B, and C respectively.
3.2 Section 8 (1) (j) - Third Party Personal Information:Page 3 of 9
A. Individual compensation details, as sought for by the appellant constitute personal information of landowners and their families which comes under the purview of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. For ease of convenience, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is quoted below:
"Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 8(1)(j) it is humbly submitted that disclosure would constitute unwarranted invasion of privacy of affected families.
B. As held in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC & Ors. ((2013) 1 SCC
212), the Supreme Court observed that personal information such as service records, salary, and disciplinary details cannot be disclosed under RTI unless the petitioner demonstrates overriding public interest.
C. In R.K. Jain v. Union of India ((2013) 14 SCC 794), the Court reiterated the need to protect third-party information in absence of demonstrable public interest.
D. The CIC in Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. upheld the basic denial of individual compensation details related to land acquisition as personal information protected under Section 8 (1) (j).
E. It is humbly submitted that the Appellant have failed to disclose and/or no overriding public interest has been established that would outweigh legitimate privacy concerns.
F. In any view of the matter, the information sought for can be accessed by the affected individuals and/or by the Appellant herein directly from the appropriate State Government authorities, who are the custodians of the records in relation to the land acquisition process.
3.3 Section 8 (1) (d) - Commercial Confidence:
Page 4 of 9A. It is humbly submitted that detailed compensation structures and methodologies may affect future land acquisition negotiations for similar projects.
B. Further, it is submitted that project-specific compensation data constitutes commercial information that could prejudice NEEPCO's competitive position.
C With respect to the disclosure sought by the Appellant, it is submitted that such disclosure may impact ongoing and future project negotiations with local communities.
D. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Harinder Pal Singh, the CIC accepted that disclosure of financial compensation models and negotiation methods could harm the commercial and strategic position of PSUs.
3.4 Information Not Held - Section 2 (f) of RTI Act:
A Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, only information "held" by a public authority or "held under its control" can be provided. For convenience, Section 2(f) is reproduced below: "Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force It is categorically stated that NEEPCO does not maintain, possess, or control the specific individual compensation records sought by the Appellant. As a matter of fact, it is further clarified that the detailed compensation records are exclusively held by the State Administration. B In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandyopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497], the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that RTI only mandates disclosure of information held or under the control of the public authority. It cannot compel an authority to procreate or create new information.
C. It is well established in administrative law and RTI jurisprudence that a public authority cannot be compelled to collate information it does not possess. The applicant must approach the lawful custodian.
4. ALTERNATIVE RELIEF SUGGESTED:
4.1 Appropriate Forum for Detailed Information:Page 5 of 9
The appellant is respectfully advised to approach the following appropriate authorities who maintain the requested records A. Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. B. Revenue Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. C. District Collector/Land Acquisition Officer for Tato-Il project area D. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Officer, if appointed for the project These authorities maintain comprehensive individual compensation records and are the appropriate custodians under the law.
5. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE:
5.1 Due Process Followed:
A The RTI application was processed within the statutory timeframe of 30 days.
BA detailed reply was provided on 20.12.2023 with clear guidance provided regarding the appropriate authorities for accessing the requested information.
c. There has been no malafide intention or deliberate withholding of information by NEEPCO 5.2 First Appeal Process:
A. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) was duly approached by the Appellant as per procedure. The FAA, after thorough examination of the Appeal, passed his Order online on 19.03.2024. B. After following due process at the first appeal level, the matter has been brought before this Hon'ble Commission. C. NEEPCO has consistently maintained the same position throughout the process based on factual and legal grounds.
6. CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL POSITION:
6.1 Federal Structure and Division of Powers:
A. It is submitted that land acquisition and compensation determination is exclusively a State subject under Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
B. Further, it is submitted that a Central Public Sector Undertaking cannot be made the custodian or repository of detailed State Government revenue records. The constitutional distribution of legislative and administrative powers must be respected and maintained.
C. While land acquisition laws are enacted under the concurrent list (Entry 42 of List III), their implementation is squarely within the Page 6 of 9 domain of the State Government. NEEPCO cannot exercise the executive authority meant for the state authority. D. Under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the executive power of a State extends to matters upon which the State legislature has the power to make laws. NEEPCO, as a Central PSU, cannot exercise or intrude into the executive dornain reserved for State Authorities under the land laws.
6.2 LARR Act, 2013 Compliance:
A. The State Government is the sole competent authority for determining individual entitlements for land compensation including distribution & record keeping of the same. under Section 3(e) of the Act B NEEPCO's financial contributions are in complete accordance with the Approved Project Cost. For which Investment approval is yet to be conveyed.
C. The District Collector under Sections 11 and 12 of the LARR Act is the statutory authority to conduct land valuation, pass award orders and maintain beneficiary-level records.
7. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS ON "INFORMATION NOT HELD"
7.1DOPT letter no. 16.09.2011 in regard to observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court on Right to Information Act, 2005, in civil appeal no 6454 of 2011, arising out of SLP [C] No. 7526/2009 in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandyopadhyay &Ors. establishing "information not held" principle. 7.2 Further, in UPSC v. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 16 SCC 242, it was held that non-availability of information with the public authority is a valid ground for refusal. The authority cannot be expected to reconstruct or retrieve data from third-party sources.
7.3 Further, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781, it was held that the RTI Act is not meant to burden public authorities with the obligation to conduct research or compile reports. Application to Present Case A. Individual compensation records are not part of NEEPCO's records. B. NEEPCO is not required under any law to maintain detailed individual compensation distribution records. C. The State District Administration/Revenue Department is the statutory custodian of such records under LARR Act, 2013 Page 7 of 9 D. NEEPCO cannot be compelled to collect or collate information that it does not possess 7.4The Hon'ble Commission may consider that in similar infrastructure projects across the country, Central PSUs typically:
A. Pay aggregate compensation to State Governments. B. Do not maintain individual beneficiary records C. Direct information seekers to appropriate State authorities D. Comply with their limited role as defined under the law.
8. PRAYER In view of the above detailed submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to A. Dismiss the Second Appeal as the specific information sought is not held by NEEPCO and lies outside its statutory role and responsibilities. B. Issue appropriate directions to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), after thorough examination and taking detail comments from the CPIO, has already upheld NEEPCO's position and hence dismissed the Appeal. The suggestion by CPIO & FAA to the Applicant/ Appellant for approaching the competent State authorities for accessing the detailed individual compensation records, is the correct Legal position, which may kindly be upheld by the Hon'ble Commission.
C. Relieve NEEPCO from the obligation to provide information that is not within its custody, possession, or control. D. Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..."
7. The Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of her written submission stated that the information has been initially denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, she re-visited the contents of RTI application and drafted a revised elaborated reply informing the factual position as mentioned in para 6 above. She volunteered to provide a copy of the same to the Appellant.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records observes that as far as RTI application is concerned adequate reply in terms of the provision of the Page 8 of 9 RTI Act has been provided by the Respondent now vide written submission dated 23.06.2025 which is comprehensive and self-explanatory and is thus, upheld. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter.
9. However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, the Respondent is directed to provide a copy of his written submission dated 23.06.2025 along with enclosures, free of cost to the Appellant. This direction should be complied by the Respondent within one week of the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Brookland Compound, Lower New Colony, Shillong - 793003 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)