Central Information Commission
Ganpat Singh Rajpurohit vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 31 March, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/YA/A/2016/000133/MP
Appellant : Shri Ganpat Singh Rajpurohit, Pali
Public Authority : National Highways Authority of India, Jodhpur
Date of Hearing : March 30, 2017
Date of Decision : March 30, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri S.K. Mishra, Project Director - through VC
RTI application : 01.10.2015
CPIO's reply : 16.10.2015
First appeal : 16.11.2015
FAA's order : NA
Second appeal : 23.12.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Ganpat Singh Rajpurohit, the appellant, sought the copies of the order regarding charging of toll on Byavar-Pali-Pindwara highway along with the date of the order, the items of works taken into account for working out the completion of the work to the extent of 70% or 80%, the revenue collected at all the four toll plazas after BPP toll way from the date of starting till 1.10.2015, the expenditure incurred by L&T in completing the construction of BPP toll way, information on the fault in the "Rapat bridge" in Paniyari Circle as a result of overturning of a truck that was full of scrap, list of bridges where service roads construction work had not been completed, the technical short comings in the bridge constructed on Balrai river, the number of persons, animals and cows who died in accidents from the beginning of the construction work to 1.10.2015, etc. through 12 points.
2. The CPIO, NHAI, Head office transferred the RTI application to the Project Director, NHAI, Jodhpur. The appellant had not enclosed any response from the CPIO or the FAA and came in appeal before the Commission requesting the Commission to accept the second appeal and have the copies of documents mentioned in point 1 to 7 provided to him.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had sent his RTI application through registered post but had not received any information from the CPIO within 30 days even though the FAA had mentioned that the information sought had been provided to the appellant and the appellant sought the copies of the documents mentioned in his RTI application.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant's contention that his RTI application had not been replied to was not correct. The application was dated 1.10.2015 and the CPIO received it on 23.10.2015 on transfer from head office. The information related to third party, i.e. L&T who constructed and maintained the highway on BOT basis. After receiving a reply from L&T, the CPIO sent a detailed reply to the appellant on 30.11.2015. As it took some time to obtain information from the L&T, the CPIO's response got delayed by about one week. In the meantime, however, the appellant went in appeal before the first appellate authority. The FAA called the appellant for hearing on 29.12.2015 but the appellant did not appear for hearing while the respondent attended the hearing. The respondent added that the FAA in his order mentioned that all information had been provided except on point 4 which was not quite legible and they asked the appellant to come and see the documents with respect to point 4 and identify the ones he wanted to take as the copies of documents sought numbered about 30,000 pages. The respondent further added that the concessionaire was ready to give copy of the identified documents. The appellant intervened and stated that the respondent was referring to the documents provided to him with respect to his RTI application of April 2015. The respondent stated that he had both the RTI applications before him and he confirmed that the reply had been given to the instant application which had 12 points. The respondent further stated that the first point of both the RTI applications was similar and again confirmed that the RTI application dated 1.10.2015 had been duly replied to and offered to permit inspection of record including the dispatch register to the appellant, if he so desired.
5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes that the respondent authority has appropriately responded to the RTI application. The Commission, however, directs the respondents to provide an opportunity to the appellant to visit the respondents' office to see the relevant record on a mutually convenient date and time while keeping the provisions of section 10(1) of the RTI Act in view, within 15 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority National Highways Authority of India National Highways Authority of India PIU, 148, Umadi Heritage, Ratanada GM (Raj), Plot G-5&6, Sector-10 Jodhpur-342011 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 Shri Ganpat Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Kaan Singh Rajpurohit 75, Behind Middle School Naya Gaon, Via & Post - Pali Distt Pali - 306401 (Rajasthan)