Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

P Sethuramapandiyan vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 18 June, 2025

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/NHAIN/A/2024/115267.

Shri. P Sethuramapandiyan.                                          ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, National      Highways    Authority       of    India,      ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Madurai

Date of Hearing                            :    16.06.2025
Date of Decision                           :    16.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner             :    Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :                 27.11.2023
PIO replied on                    :                 30.12.2023
First Appeal filed on             :                 02.01.2024
First Appellate Order on          :                 07.02.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :                 16.05.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

"1. The action taken by the National Highways Authority of India higher officials on my legal Notices and reminders which was sent through reference cited and its current status.

2. The evidences enclosed in the notices was received from unknown sources. Hence, it is requested to furnish the certified copies of the following.

(a) The attendance register pertaining to M/s. Theme Engineering Services Private Limited (Karur-Dindigul section & Dindigul-Samyanallur section of NH-44) from commencement to till date.

(b) The e-attendance register pertaining to M/s. Theme Engineering Services Private Limited (Karur-Dindigul section & Dindigul-Samyanallur section of NH-44) from commencement to till date.

(c) The works done by the Mr. Vignesh (IT Expert) from his date of joining at the office of Independent Engineer (M/s. Theme Engineering Services Private Limited) Service to till date. Etc."

The CPIO, Dy. Manager (Tech), Regional Office Madurai vide letter dated 30.12.2023 replied as under:-

"1. Under Scrutiny Page 1 of 3 2(a-f). Information cannot be provided as per section 8.1(h) and 8.1(j) of the RTI Act 2005.

g. There is one Contract Agreement for providing manpower for RO Madurai and its PIUs. The desired information contains 78 pages. It is therefore requested to deposit Rs. 176 as per RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. h. The desired information contains 565 pages. It is therefore requested to deposit Rs. 1130/- as per RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.01.2024. The FAA, Regional Officer vide order dated 07.02.2024 stated as under:-

"Copies of the following documents are attached herewith; (1) Contract Agreement dated 27.11.2020 for the Independent Engineer services during Operation & Maintenance period for Karur-Dindigul section of NH-7 from Km 292.000 to Km 373.725 and Dindigul-Samayanallur section of NH-7 from Km 373.725 to Km 426.775 in the State of Tamil Nadu (Page 1 to 565) (2) Copy of Contract Agreement dated 27.08.2021 for Facility services in NHAI's Regional Office and its Project Implementation Units for two years (Page 1 to 78) Total 643 Pages The information desired relates to personal information and is not of any public activity or interest, and may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual."

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 07.06.2025 has been received from the Respondent reiterating the aforementioned facts.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri R Murugaprakash - DGM, Tech. & PIO, Regional Office, Madurai was present through video conference during hearing. The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the response sent by the Respondent though he could not explain the exact cause of his dissatisfaction. The Respondent reiterated contents from the PIO's reply stating that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information available on record with the public authority and defined as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant. Since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate, 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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)