Central Information Commission
Santhakumari N K vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 28 June, 2022
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/2021/623427
Santhakumari N K ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DGM Technical And Project
Director, Project Implementation Unit,
National Highways Authority of India,
RTI Cell, No. 1, 2nd Floor,
Subramaniapuram 3rd Street,
Karaikudi, Sivaganga-630002,
Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/06/2022
Date of Decision : 27/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 24/04/2020
First appeal filed on : 01/05/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 05/05/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/05/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 12.03.2020 seeking information relating to land acquisition of 10 villages connected with the NH-49 of Madurai, including inter-alia;
a) Land Area acquired under Section 3D in Sq. Mtr. (as per Award),
b) Award Number and Date,
c) Total Amount as per Award,
d) Total Amount deposited (in Rs.) by NHAI into the Bank Account of CALA on or before 31.12.2014,
e) Total Amount deposited On Rs.) by NHAI into the Bank Account of CALA after 31.12.2014,
f) Total Land Area in Sq. Mtr., for which CALA paid compensation to landowners on or before 31.12.2014 and
g) Total Land Area in Sq. Mtr. for which CALA paid compensation to landowners after 31.12.2014 (i.e. in 2015 and thereafter).
The above mentioned information may be provided in the attached FORMAT."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 24.04.2020 stating as follows:-
".........the writ petition (MD). NO. 24052 of 2018 is pending before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court filed by you and 4 others, this office is not in a position to furnish the information at the present moment."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.05.2020. FAA's order dated 05.05.2021 held as under:-
"2. "In R K Senguptha -Vs- National Institute of Technology, Durgapur [RTIR 1 (2011) 276] the Commission (Central Information Commission) has observed that information which is not available in the records cannot be directed to be given under the RTI Act. In other words, the Public Authority cannot be asked to manufacture information for the Appellant, no matter how genuine the case of the applicant is."
3. It is seen from the records that the Appellant has enclosed a format also along with her Application dated 12.03.2020 in which she has requested PIO and PD, Karaikudi to furnish the land acquisition details of 10 villages and the other land owners also in the Format prepared by the Applicant. The 2 object of the RTI Act is to provide the available information to the Applicants as per taw and not to manufacture the information in the desired Format as prepared by the Applicant.
4. Applying the above decision laid down by the CIC, it is to inform that `The Public Authority cannot be asked to manufacture information for the Appellant, no matter how genuine the case of the applicant is."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Alwar Solarajan, husband of the Appellant present through video- conference.
Respondent: M S Pandian, Dy. GM (T)/PD & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant reiterated the contents of their latest written submission dated 16.06.2022, relevant portion of which is as under -
1)The requested information under the RTI Act pertains to the land acquired in 10 villages of Sivagangai District for widening and four-laning of NH-49, Compensation awarded and paid to the landowners pursuant to the Gazette Notification S.O. 21(E) dated 02.01.2012 issued by the Central Government.
2) xxxxx
3) The requested information does NOT fall under any of the exhaustive list of Exempted Information that are specified in Section 8 and Section 9 of the RTI Act, 2005.
4) The Respondent herein is the statutorily appointed 'Acquiring 86 Executing Agency' on behalf of the Central Government. As such, he is statutorily responsible for depositing, the amount of compensation awarded, into the bank account maintained for this purpose. In the instant case, the amount was deposited into the Joint Bank Account of the Respondent and the Competent 3 Authority-Land Acquisition (CALA). After the Award Amount was deposited in full into the above bank account, compensation amount was paid to the individual landowners according to their respective entitlement under the 'JOINT SIGNATURE OF BOTH RESPONDENT and CALA'.
5) As the Central Government's public funds are used for the public purpose, all records pertaining to the info' !nation on the above acquisition, viz., land acquired in each village, compensation awarded for each village, date 86 amount of deposit of compensation and the date 86 amount of payments to the landowners and their respective land area, are available with the Respondent, who is statutorily responsible to maintain the same.
6) However, despite having the information 'on record', the Respondent refused the requested information on the ground that "Since the Writ Petition (MD) 24052 of 2018 is pending before the Madurai Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court filed by you and 4 others, this office is NOT in a position to furnish the information at the present moment".
7) In this regard, it is pertinent to bring before this Hon'ble Commission that the above Writ Petition (MD): 24052 of 2018 was filed for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the CALA for re-determination of compensation in accordance with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in terms of Clause 4.6 iii a 86 b e nos. 18-20 of the Second Appeal Application) of the Comprehensive Guidelines in No. 11011/30/2015- LA dated 28.12.2017 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport 86 Highways on Applicability of RFCTLARR Act to land acquisition under the National Highways act, 1956.
8) Since the information requested by the Appellant was a CRUCIAL INFORMAT ON that would entitle all the affected landowners for higher compensation benefits under the RFCTLARR Act, the refusal by the Respondent to provide such information is nothing but a willful and malafide attempt with the intention of depriving the affected landowners of their legitimate compensation benefits for the lands that were compulsorily acquired.
9) On an appeal before the FAA against the refusal of information by the CPIO, the FAA also refused to provide the requested information by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Commission in R K Sengupta vs. National Institute of Technology, Durgapur (File No. CIC/ WB/A/2010/000450-AD) but with a gross misunderstanding a both the facts of the case and rationale 86 logical reasoning behind the decision of the Hon'ble CIC.
410) Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act provides that "An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question".
11) So long as the information is available in the records of the public authority as in the instant case of the Appellant, Section 7 (9) does not give any outright authority to any public authority to refuse the information to the Applicant. In view of the broader meaning given to `Right to Information' under Section 2 (j) of the Act, the public authority shall either furnish the information in the Form in which it is sought or shall enable the applicant to inspect the relevant records and identify the record for getting copies thereof and provide copies of such identified records under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005...."
In rebuttal to Appellant's contention, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards their written submission dated 24.06.2022, which is as under -
"......One writ petition No WP(MD)No 24052 of 2018 was filed in the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and it was pending The petitioner of this case and the RTI applicant are one and the same. Hence-the request for seeking information was not accepted.
Subsequently, the RTI applicant appealed to the Regional Officer (the First Appellate Authority) on 01.05.2020. The Request of appeal was disposed by mentioning that "The Public Authority cannot be asked to manufacture information for the appellant no mention how genuine the case of the applicant is".
In continuation to the Writ Petition, the petitioner (RTI applicant) has filed case WP(MD) No.1507 of 2022 which is pending in Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Hence, the requested information cannot be provided at this instant. It is humbly requested the Commission to grant three weeks of time to3et legal advice from the Counsel..."
The Rep. of the Appellant contested the action/inaction of the Respondent public authority in non-disbursing the compensation amount at par with the other land owners.
Lastly, at the behest of the Commission the CPIO agreed to provide relevant information to the Appellant after liasioning with the actual custodian of information and prayed the Commission to grant 3 weeks' time to do the needful.
5Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the reply provided by the then CPIO and also by the present CPIO is rather evasive and largely fails to comply with the provisions of RTI Act. Firstly, the denial of information by the CPIO on the plea that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court without substantiating the same under any of the exemption clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act was completely inappropriate more particularly when such information as sought by the Appellant, especially with respect to land areas/dates/total amount are generic in nature and do not in any way attract any of the exemption clauses of the RTI Act. Moreover, the present CPIO could not substantiate or justify his said stand for denial of information during the hearing, as to how the case pending before the Hon'ble High Court exempts the disclosure of information sought under the RTI Act.
In this context attention of the CPIO is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 can be cited:
"5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
Similarly, this Commission in its decision in Mr. Ashu v. CPIO/ Sr. Supdt of Posts, Department of Posts in CIC/BS/A/2015/001578/11769 dated 28.11.2016 had held as under:
"At the outset it is clarified that the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for subjudice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court."
The only pertinent exemption from disclosure in the instant matter appears to be with respect to the names & identifying particulars of the officers or land owners which may be reflected on the notings/comments on the information sought and cannot be divulged considering the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
In view of the aforesaid observations and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of RTI Application and provide a 6 revised point wise reply along with the relevant available information as sought for in RTI Application after accessing the same from the concerned record holder by redacting the names and identifying particulars of the officers/land owners, if any, which may figure in the notings/comments keeping in view the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and can be severed in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.
The aforesaid reply/information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the action/inaction of the Respondent public authority in awarding the compensation amount is purely a matter of grievance which is not amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant is advised to pursue the matter through proper channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7