Central Information Commission
Preeti vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 15 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NHAIN/A/2022/664300
Preeti ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ....... तवाद गण/Respondent
National Highways Authority of India,
HAI, RTI Cell, PIU Kanpur,
53, Basant Vihar, Naubasta,
Kanpur- 208021, U.P.
Date of Hearing : 05/09/2023
Date of Decision : 14/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/10/2022
CPIO replied on : 11/10/2022
First appeal filed on : 14/10/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 25/10/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.10.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Information relating to 6 laning Project Chakeri to Allahabad Section?
Q-1:- What is the IRC Guideline for selection of Structure in 6 laninig project Chakeri to Allahabad Section?
Q-2:- Why the Underpasses have been provided at Thariyaon Bypass Both Ends (Ch. No. 570.970km & 568.800km), and why under pass provided only at 582.275km Western end (Old GT Road Entry/Exit) of Khaga bypass only, While Eastern end (Exists Old GT Road Entry/Exit)Bypass of Khaga at 585.660km has no underpass facility for safe movement of Traffic?
Q-3:- What was the traffic count in terms of PCU during DPR preparation at km 568.800, km 582.275, km 585.660 and km 586.950 and what is the expected growth has been considered for future traffic in coming years?
Q-4:- What are the safety measures has been taken into consideration for safe movement of traffic and pedestrian please clarify?
Q-5:- Why the EPC contractor has started the construction work, when the demand of underpass has been accepted and recommended (under Change of Scope) by Authority Engineer & Authority and matter is still pending at NHAI Head Quarters?
Q-6:- Who will be responsible if any accident will happen due to non-provision of road safety policy at km 585.660 of Eastern end of KHAGA bypass. Please mention the name and designation of concern person?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 11.10.2022 stating as under:
"The Question and Answer is not admissible under RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First appeal on 14.10.2022. FAA's order, dated 25.10.2022, held as under:
"In this regard, CPIO/PD, PIU- Kanpur is hereby directed to examine the RTI Application and provide related information, other than the questions, which is available in the office to the applicant as per RTI Act 2005 at the earliest with intimation to this office. If the information is not related to, or not in 2 possession of, then the application may be transferred to concerned office as per RTI Act provisions."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non- receipt of desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Aman Rohilla, PD/ PIU & CPIO present through video-conference.
The written submission filed by the CPIO prior to the hearing is taken on record.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the NIC officer attached with the NIC studio/venue allocated for hearing of the Appellant informed the bench that the Appellant expressed her inability to appear for hearing and further intimated that the issue pertaining to instant matter has already been resolved and therefore, this case may be treated as withdrawn.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought by the Appellant are in the form of queries seeking clarification; therefore, it was replied to the Appellant that it cannot provided in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
To a query from the Commission regarding status of compliance of FAA's order, the CPIO was clueless and stated that he had to check the status.
Decision:
The Commission upon hearing the submissions of the CPIO and by closely scrutinizing the records is in agreement with the response of the CPIO provided now that the information as sought by the Appellant is in the form of seeking clarification/explanation to be deduced from the CPIO, which does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
Here, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide 3 the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.
Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law.
Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:4
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission is baffled with the fact that initial response of the CPIO is cryptic in the sense that denial of information has been made by the CPIO without substantiating the same with the relevant provisions of RTI Act and in addition to it, the then CPIO did not even comply with the FAA's order despite undue delay. Moreover, the present CPIO did not even bother to comply with the FAA's order even after receipt of the hearing notice for taking any effective action in the matter. Such casual conduct of the CPIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is in grave violation of the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of the above, the concerned then CPIO (at the time of receipt of RTI Application) is hereby directed to send his written submission detailing the reason for non-compliance of FAA's order. The said written submission of the concerned then CPIO along with supporting documents, if any, through the present CPIO should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Aman Rohilla, present PIO should serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO for timely compliance of the above said direction under due intimation to the Commission.
5Lastly, considering the submissions of the Appellant that she is no more interested to pursue the instant Appeal any further, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6