Central Information Commission
Vipin Kumar Tyagi vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 30 January, 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/2022/634698
Vipin Kumar Tyagi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of
India, PIU, RTI Cell, 53, Basant Vihar,
Naubasta, Kanpur-208021,
Uttar Pradesh .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/10/2022
Date of Decision : 29/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 10/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 21/04/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2021 seeking the following information regarding the Reinforced Soil wall at bridge approaches from chainage 243+450 to 244+300 (at Kalpi) constructed for the BOT project named as
- Construction of 4 Laning of Km 220.0 on Orai- Bhognipur Section of NH-25 and is a sequel to earlier RTI application no. NHAIN/R/E/21/02980/64 Dated 10.08.2021:1
1. "Kindly inform whether any ground improvement using basal reinforcement was carried out below reinforced soil wall for aforementioned project? If so, state the name and address of agency who prepared the design and drawings of that ground improvement system. Also state the name and address of agency who proof-checked the design and drawings of that ground improvement system.
2. In case ground improvement was carried out below reinforced soil wall, state the name and address of agency who supplied the basal reinforcement for ground improvement. Also state the name and address of the agency who executed and supervised the ground improvement below reinforced soil wall.
3. In case ground improvement was carried out, was any performance guarantee for successful performance of ground improvement material & system during life of reinforced soil wall structure was taken from the material supplier & the system supplier. If so, kindly provide the copy of same.
4. In case ground improvement was done below reinforced soil wall, has any test certificate for basal reinforcement been furnished by the geosynthetic material supplier, if so kindly furnish the copy of the same.
5. In case of reinforced soil wall, the PIO had replied wide letter no.
NHAI/1313/PIU/KNP/RTI/2021/6522 dated 04.09.2021 in which he had admitted that no performance bond was taken from the system supplier as per section 3108 (page 811) - Specifications for Roads and Bridges, as those particular MORTH guidelines were not applicable to the agreement as the contract agreement was prior to year 2007. Kindly inform whether NHAI had taken any form of performance guarantee from the system supplier for the safety and reliability of reinforced soil wall during its project life. If so, then kindly provide the copy of the same.
6. In case of any future malfunction/ damage in performance of the reinforced soil wall during the concession period and after the concession period, which agency shall be responsible for the safety and loss of serviceability of structure the structure along with public safety. Kindly state the name and address of agencies responsible for the same?
7. Kindly state the area in sqm of reinforced soil wall executed by the concessionaire."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 10.02.2022. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
2Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: A K Rohilla, PD & PIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant referred to his written arguments sent prior to the hearing stating as under:
1) "In reply to query no. 2, following discrepancies were noted: The name of one of the suppliers was mentioned as "M/s Hi-Tech Geosynthetics Pvt. Ltd." However, this information was misleading as that company never supplied material for ground improvement for this project as per the information available with the Appellant. Thus, CPIO was advised to rectify his reply after rechecking his information. In case, the CPIO wants to remain steadfast on that express information, then he should reiterate the same information along with affidavit on oath. The name and address of the agency who supervised the ground improvement had not still been specified even though it was pointed out in 1st Appeal.
2) In reply to query no. 3, same reply had been provided as already furnished in earlier reply. The reply provided was not pertaining to the query asked and thus misleading. The CPIO should state whether any performance guarantee has been taken from the material supplier & the system supplier or not by either NHAI or the concessionaire. If taken, then copy of the same should be provided.
3) In reply to query no. 4, a contradictory and misleading assertion had been made by CPIO regarding test certificates for basal reinforcement as follows: "Not available in office record of this office" However, in earlier reply, it was stated as follows: "Yes. The requisite documents will be provided after depositing of Rs. 50/- as per RTI Act, 2005" These are contradictory and misleading assertions regarding same query. Earlier CPIO asserted that test reports are available and their copies can be provided and later he denied possessing them in his office. Even if CPIO does not have them in his office record, he can make them available through consultant as that also part of the project report of his office and consultant would be surely in possession of those test reports in their records as a quality control measure. In case if he denies their absence altogether from the official records of NHAI, consultant and concessionaire then that would be considered as lacunae in quality control assurance in ground improvement measure and then he should assert this fact of the matter of absence of test reports through an affidavit under oath.
4) In reply to query no. 5, same reply has been provided as already furnished in earlier reply. The reply provided is not pertaining to the query asked and thus misleading. The CPIO should state whether any performance guarantee has been taken from the system supplier for the safety and loss of serviceability of reinforced soil wall during its project life or not by either NHAI or concessionaire. If taken, then copy should be provided."3
The CPIO submitted that a detailed response to each of the argument submitted by the Appellant has been already sent to him on 29.09.2022.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the averred reply of the CPIO and at the behest of the Commission desired for a copy of the same to be sent on his email id to which the CPIO agreed.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that the information sought for by the Appellant does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in as much as the RTI Application seeks answers to speculative queries requiring the CPIO to draw inferences and deduce answers. Yet, the CPIO has provided adequate reply to each of the point of the RTI Application with factual information and has also supplemented their reply with the detailed rebuttal provided on 29.09.2022. 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 the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is 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 washeld 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 4 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) Moreover, the contentions of the Appellant stated in the grounds of the Second Appeal as well as his written submissions harp on questioning the factual merits of the clarifications/answers/reply provided by the CPIO in response to the RTI queries, in turn asking for additional answers warranting no action at this stage. Here, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) 5 Having observed as above and in view of the hearing proceedings, the case is closed.
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