Central Information Commission
Bollina Venkata Raja Chowdary vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 11 January, 2021
CIC/NHAIN/A/2019/102103
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NHAIN/A/2019/102103
In the matter of:
... अपीलकता/Appellant
Bollina Venkata Raja Chowdary
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO , ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/National Highway Authority of
India, Corporate Office, G-5 & 6,
Sector - 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.10.2018 FA : 16.11.2018 SA : 15.01.2019
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 06.01.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Bollina Venkata Raja Chowdary participated in the hearing
through video conferencing from NIC West Godavari.
Respondent: Shri Surendranath, Project Director, NHAI, Rajahmundry
participated in the hearing through video conferencing from NIC West Godavari
and Shri P. Siva Sankar, PIO/GM(Tech) and Project Director, Vishakhapatnam and
Shri D.V. Narayana, GM (Tech) and Project Director, Vijayawada and Dr. T.
Srinivas, PIO and Project Director, NHAI, PIU-Amaravati participated in the
hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/NHAIN/A/2019/102103
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 10.10.2018 seeking information on seven points, pertaining to highway toll-gates and highway formation details from 2001-2018 @ Andhra Pradesh State, including, inter-alia;
1) From TADA to Ichchapuram to construct a 4 line road, how much did you spend for each kilometer. How much toll you have to collect, and till now how much did you collect from 2001 to 2018.
2) From 2001 to 2018 TADA to Ichchapuram how many times do you maintained the four way highway, and what is basic contractor time, that you have to maintain.
3) When did you extend it to 6 line highway and upto what extent did you extend. What is the toll you collected 4 way and 6 ways.
4) How many toll gets should be there in each district.
5) From 2001-18, how much did you spent per each kilometer and same way for 6 way. What is the maintenance for, 4 way and 6 way per kilometer. How much toll you have to collect and how much did you collect till now. The whole information, I.E. (1) Sanction estimate, (2) Agreement, (3) Work estimate, (4) quality control certificate, (5) M Book and with (stamped) Bank challans.
6) Did you pay the whole amount to the bank if so send appellant the (stamped) bank challans that are authorized.
7) According to Section 4, sub section 1 and 2, you have to keep the information in website, if so tell appellant, he will search in internet.
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2018, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appelalte Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.Page 2 of 6
CIC/NHAIN/A/2019/102103 Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent.
Shri P. Siva Sankar submitted that the instant RTI Application was received on 16.10.2018 in RTI Cell, NHAI, New Delhi and further forwarded to CPIO/GM(T)-
AP and Telangana to PIO/PD, NHAI, Nellore on 23.10.2018. He further submitted that on 14.11.2018, point-wise information was provided to the Appellant by Shri Sanjay Channa, Project Director, PIU-Nellore, AP. Since the Appellant was not satisfied with the information provided by Shri Sanjay Channa, a First Appeal was filed on 20.11.2018, which was further transferred to the concerned FAA i.e., RO- Vijayawada on 05.12.2018. The aforementioned First Appeal was received by the Appellate Authority and Regional Officer, NHAI, Vijayawada through RTI portal on 05.12.2018 and upon scrutiny of the same, the FAA and the then Regional Officer, NHAI, Vijayawada disposed off the First Appeal vide order dated 19.12.2018, wherein it was stated as under:
"(i) It is observed from the history of the Application, that initially the application was filed on 18.10.2018 vide Registration No. NHAIN/R/2018/01408, Dt.16.10.2018 before RTI Cell (SCPIO). The application was transferred to other CPIO i.e., PD, Nellore from HQ on 23.10.2018. PIO/PD, PIU, Nellore has provided the information pertaining to the projects under PIU Nellore jurisdiction vide letter dt. 14.11.2018.
(ii) However, it is observed from the application dt. 16.10.2018 that the information sought by the applicant pertains to Tada to Ichhapuram. The said section covers five PIUs i.e., Visakhapatnam, Rajahmundry, Vijayawada, Amaravati & Nellore.
(iii) The applicant vide Appeal dt. 20.11.2018 has filed an appeal petition before NHAI, HQ stating that the "Details not provided". The said Appeal Petition appeared on Regional Office RTI Portal on 05.12.2018.Page 3 of 6
CIC/NHAIN/A/2019/102103
(iv) As PIU, Nellore has already provided the said information, the PIOs/PD, PIU, Visakhapatnam, Rajahmundry, Vijayawada & Amaravati are directed to provide the information to the application dt.16.10.2018 of the applicant as per RTI Act provisions."
In continuation, Shri P. Siva Sankar submitted that the instant RTI Application, which was received by PIU-Visakhapatnam on 15.10.2018. Accordingly, available information was provided to the Appellant on 05.11.2018. He further submitted that in compliance with the orders of the FAA; PIO/PD-PIU, Visakhapatnam again provided the information to the Appellant on 24.12.2018.
Dr. T. Srinivas submitted that the instant RTI Application was received by PIU- Amaravati on 20.10.2018. Accordingly, available information was provided to the Appellant on 15.11.2018. He further submitted that in compliance with the orders of the FAA; PIO/PD-PIU, Amaravati again provided the information to the Appellant on 21.12.2018.
Shri Surendranath submitted that available and relevant information pertaining to the PIU-Rajahmundry has been provided to the Appellant on 08.11.2018. He further submitted that in compliance with the orders of the FAA, PIU- Rajahmundry again provided the information to the Appellant on 21.12.2018.
A written submission has been received from Dr. T. Srinivas, Project Director, PIU-Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh and Shri P. Siva Sankar, GM(Tech) and Project Director vide letters dated 31.12.2020 wherein they have narrated the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that available and relevant Page 4 of 6 CIC/NHAIN/A/2019/102103 information has been provided to the Appellant from PIU-Rajahmundry, PIU- Vishakhapatnam, PIU-Vijayawada, PIU-Nellore and PIU-Amaravati. The Commission upholds the submissions of the Respondent public authority and finds no further scope of action in the instant matter. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 11.01.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 5 of 6 CIC/NHAIN/A/2019/102103 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) / National Highway Authority of India, Corporate Office, G-5 & 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075
2. The Central Public Information Officer / National Highway Authority of India, Corporate Office, G-5 & 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075
3. Mr. Bollina Venkata Raja Chowdary Page 6 of 6