Central Information Commission
Shaik Umar Farooq vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 2 August, 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/2021/659692
Shaik Umar Farooq ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of India,
PIU-Hyderabad, RTI Cell, Qtr. No. 25A & 28A,
ASCI, College Park Campus, Road No. 3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034, Telangana. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/08/2022
Date of Decision : 01/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 15/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 11/10/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 10/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 09.09.2021 seeking the following information;
1. "Can private property such as hotels, factories can get a junction(T- junction) on national highway 65.
2. if yes, what is the procedure to get a junction for private property on National Highway -65 (NH-65) 1
3. if No, what is the punishment if someone gets a junction(T-junction) on national highway-65 for private property personal use.
4. if a private property gets a junction, and on that junction, there are zebra crossing, warning lights, rumble strips/strips etc facilities are provided, with whose money these facilities will be provided, private property owners or taxpayer money."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 15.10.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point No. 1 to 4:-Please visit the website of www.morth.nic.in for all the details."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.10.2021. FAA's order dated 10.11.2021 stated that information has already furnished by the CPIO to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied for non-receipt of material information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. He further prayed the Commission to penalize the CPIO for delay in reply.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Not present.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that generic information as sought by him was not provided by the CPIO despite expiry of stipulated time frame. He further stated that the CPIO should be penalized for such wrongs.
In response to it, the Commission counselled the Appellant that queries raised by him concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as he has sought for interpretation/clarifications from the CPIO in the form of speculations.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of instant RTI Applications is of the considered 2 view that the queries raised by the Appellant through instant RTI Application do not even conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as he has sought for the clarification/inferences from the CPIO based on speculative queries; to that extent merits of CPIO's reply cannot be called into question.
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.
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) Further, the issue of delay in reply as raised by the Appellant is unacceptable in view of the fact that the instant RTI Application was received by the CPIO on 15.09.2021 (as per record) and the same was duly replied to within the stipulated timeline as per RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the present CPIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof and also non-submission of any written submission in response to instant case. Such colossal misconduct of the CPIO tantamount to sheer disregard to the hearing proceedings and is viewed adversely by the Commission.
3In view of the above, the CPIO is hereby directed to send their written explanations to show cause with the Commission as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of RTI Act for their absence before the Commission during the hearing.
The aforesaid written explanation of both the CPIOs along with supporting documents, if any should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which ex parte action may be initiated against them as per the Act.
Further, a copy of this order is marked to the Regional Officer, NHAI, Hyderabad and also to the Chairman, NHAI, New Delhi for timely compliance of the above said direction.
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 / Copy to -
Chairman, National Highways Authority of India, G- 5 & 6, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075.
(for due compliance of above direction) 4 Copy to-
Regional Officer, National Highways Authority of India, 1st floor, ASCI College Campus, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034.
(for due compliance of above direction) 5