Central Information Commission
Raj Bahadur Rathore vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 7 March, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NHAIN/C/2021/103410
Raj Bahadur Rathore ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of
India, RTI cell, G-5 & 6, Sector 10,
Dwarka - 10075, New Delhi. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/03/2022
Date of Decision : 04/03/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 30/09/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/01/2021
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.09.2020 seeking the following information:1
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: A.R. Chitranshi, P.D. & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Complainant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that no reply has been provided to him till date. He further stated that the CPIO should be penalized for causing such violation of the provisions of RTI Act.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 17.02.2022, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under -
"......RTI information sought by Shri Rajbahadur Rathore was received to this office through online RTI portal.
The information sought was regarding a complaint made to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for retail outlet on NH-730. As the NH-730 does not comes under jurisdiction of NHAI and the complaint was made to M/s BPCL, hence the online RTI was forwarded to M/s BPCL on 10.03.2021 (Receipt enclosed). It is to further inform that the NH-730 stretch is under the jurisdiction of UP, Public Works Department (UP PWD)...."
In response to CPIO's submissions, the Complainant contested that since the NHAI has issued guidelines with respect to issuance/allotment of petrol pumps along the highway, therefore, the relevant information must be held with them. In rebuttal to said contentions of Complainant, the CPIO clarified that the averred 2 complaint of the Complainant was addressed to BPCL as the subject matter has direct bearing with the said public authority where NHAI has no role to play therefore, accordingly, the RTI Application was transferred to BPCL under Section 6(3) of RTI Act.
To a query from the Commission regarding the reason for delay in transfer of RTI Application to BPCL, the CPIO failed to provide any cogent explanation.
Decision The Commission at the outset upon perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO recently as the same is in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission takes grave exception to the factum of delay caused by the concerned CPIO, NHAI, RO West in transferring the RTI Application to the CPIO, BPCL. This fact is evident from the record that as per action history on online RTI portal, the RTI Application was forwarded to N.P.Singh, R.O. - UP(West) on 16.10.2020by the CPIO, NHAI, HQ; who kept it pending with him till 17.02.2021 i.e. more than 4 months and thereafter transferred to A.R. Chitranshi, PIU- , NHAI, Bareilly. In addition to it, A.R. Chitranshi, PD/PIU & CPIO, Bareilly further took more than 20 days in transferring the RTI Application to the concerned CPIO, BPCL. Such colossal casual conduct of N.P. Singh, CPIO, NHAI -R.O., U.P. West as well as of A.R. Chitranshi, PD/PIU & CPIO, Bareilly tantamount to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Complainant's right to information and is in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of the above, N.P. Singh, CPIO, NHAI -R.O., U.P. West and A.R. Chitranshi, PD/PIU & CPIO, Bareilly are hereby directed to file their written explanations to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them under Section 20 of RTI Act for causing such delay. The written explanation of the said CPIOs along with supporting documents, if any should be filed with the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4