Central Information Commission
D Malla Reddy vs National Projects Construction ... on 7 January, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/NPCCL/A/2018/142855/02549
File no.: CIC/NPCCL/A/2018/142855
In the matter of:
D Malla Reddy
... Appellant
VS
1. Public Information Officer,
National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd,
Corporate Office, Plot No 148, Sector 44,
Gurugram 122 003, Haryana
2. PIO / Zonal Manager,
NPCC Limited,
822-A, Gandhi Nagar,
Near Dogra Ground, Jammu- 180004
Jammu & Kashmir
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 04/04/2018 CPIO replied on : 10/05/2018 First appeal filed on : 17/05/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 18/06/2018 Second Appeal dated : 04/07/2018 Date of Hearing : 06/01/2020 Date of Decision : 06/01/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Representative of the appellant, present over VC Respondent: Jasmine Dhar Singh, Joint GM(HR) and CPIO and Nitin Saxena, Senior Manager(Legal), both present in person.
1Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information/documents:
1. Agreement No. 799644/H/ITBP/Pkg-I dated 10.05.2010 entered between department and contractor i.e. Patel Engineering Limited having its branch office at Plot No. 76, H No 8-2-293/82/A/76, Road No. 9A, Jubilee Hills, Hyderbad 500 033 for Construction of High Altitute Roads along Indo-China border in Leh-Ladakh Region Package - I- Karzok to Chumar under NIT No. NPCC/799644/H/09/Pkg-I dated 21-11-2009.
2. Entire General Conditions and Conditions of Particular Application (COPA) of the above mentioned agreement.
3. Certified copies of all work measured books.
4. What is the total project cost, the total amount paid to the Contractor for execution of above contract alongwith the copies of all the bills released to the Contractor i.e. M/s Patel Engineering Limited pertaining to the execution of the above mentioned project.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO particularly on point no. 4 of the RTI application.
The CPIO appeared late after the VC was disconnected. However owing to the fact that they were only 2-3 minutes late for the hearing, the Commission is taking a lenient view in the matter and is taking their submissions on record.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought by the appellant on point no. 4 pertained to road works of Indo-China Border and it is apparent that this information related to defence, hence is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. She also submitted that this work pertained to ITBP which is an exempted organisation u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The NPCC is the agency engaged only for the execution of this work. All the documents, bills and correspondence in connection with the construction of the Indo-China border are not in their custody.2
File no.: CIC/NPCCL/A/2018/142855 Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO on point no. 4 of the RTI application where he had sought the total project cost, the total amount paid to the contractor for the execution of the above contract alongwith the copies of the bills released to the contractor i.e. M/s Patel Engineering Limited. The CPIO in her submissions submitted that this information related to the construction of Indo-China border is a sensitive information and hence the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. She also submitted that even if the cost of the project will be disclosed to the appellant, the appellant being a contractor himself will get to know the strength of the fencing which will hamper the security of the State.
The Commission concurs with the view of the CPIO that this information if disclosed will prejudicially affect the security of the state and hence no action is warranted in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3
4