Central Information Commission
Dharmesh Vikramsinh Jadeja vs Central Public Works Department (Sr) on 5 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CPWSR/C/2023/622897
Dharmesh Vikramsinh Jadeja ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Central Public Works Department,
O/o EE & Senior Manager (C),
Pondicherry Project Circle, Auroville,
Villupuram District-605101. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2024
Date of Decision : 31.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03.10.0222
CPIO replied on : 15.12.2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Information pertaining to the method by which CPWD was selected as contractor by the Auroville Foundation (AVF). This should include:Page 1 of 6
a) AVF invitations to tender bids for works in Auroville including copies of media and other methods of circulating such invitations to tender as received by CPWD,
b) Details of meetings with AVF representatives in which tendering, scope of work, and criteria for selection of works contractors was discussed
c) Information regarding the extent to which the AVF disclosed legal issues arising from the National Green Tribunal Ruling of 28 April 2022 and the potential impact of them on the legality of works being undertaken on the Crown Road
d) Details of the topography of the land upon which CPWD was invited to tender to undertake works by the AVF. In particular, please provide information on the extent to which the following information, or matters relating to it, are in your possession. If they were provided by the AVF please say when:
i. survey of the planned area on which work was to be undertaken ii. detailed survey of the existing MSL levels along the planned trajectory of the Crown road iii. details of MSL heights in the inner and outer edge of the Crown Road iv. details of storm water runoff, size of gutters, calculated amount of stormwater runoff, and catchment areas V. plans of the planned road section at regular intervals indicating the MSL heights of the road, terrain, culverts / gutters vi. detailed cross section of road build up / structural plans vii. longitudinal section of the planned road viii. working / on-site drawings ix. bridges "culverts/bridges"
Χ. Projected timeline of construction of different sections of works AVF sought to be undertaken.
2. All Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), Contracts and Undertakings (agreed orally or in writing) between the AVF (including with any of its constituent Committees or representatives) and the CPWD relating to the works that are being undertaken in July 2022 in Auroville
3. Work Orders and, if applicable, details of other authorisations whether written or oral, permitting the execution of works on Crown Road, with details of the exact stretch of road the permission relates to.
4. All Bills of Quantities relating to works undertaken on the Crown Road.
5. Details of Points of Contact within AVF that CPWD takes instructions from regarding works undertaken in Auroville."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 15.12.2022 stating as under:
Page 2 of 6"1. As per the Memorandum of Understanding the method of tender calling for Auroville works by Central Public Works Department as per rules and norms framed by the Government of India.
2. Yes. Periodical meeting done with Auroville Foundation representatives for which tendering, scope of work, design and criteria for selection of works contractors, etc was discussed. For upcoming works also the same procedures to be followed.
3. Yes discussed with Auroville Foundation authorities and implemented the National Green Tribunal orders and other statuary rules norms in Auroville works.
4. As the desired information is generic in nature, you are requested to attend this office during the working hours of any of the working day with prior intimation of your visit, for obtaining requisite information by physically verifying the records from the office.
5. As the desired information is generic in nature, you are requested to attend this office during the working hours of any of the working day with prior intimation of your visit, for obtaining requisite information by physically verifying the records from the office.
6. As per Government of India, Central Public Works Department and Auroville Foundation."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA's order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Represented by Advocate Suchindran Baskar Narayan present through video-conference.
Respondent: Mr. S. Ravi, Engg. / The then PIO along with Mr. N. Pandian, A.E./PIO present through video-conference.Page 3 of 6
Ld. Counsel for the Complainant raised his arguments in the instant case on the following lines:
"1. I had submitted an RTI on the 3rd of October 2022 (Transferred on the 20th October from CPWD to CPPRC), and consequently a First Appeal on the 23rd of November 2023 requesting the CPWD to disclose any Applications for Environmental Clearance sought by the AVF or the CPWD from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for works to be undertaken in the Auroville Master Plan area and other details regarding works to be undertaken in the Auroville Master Plan area- For the period 28 April 2022 to 1 October 2022- (see annex 1 for the original RTI requests) ● RTI Ref Number CPPRC/R/T/22/00083;
● First Appeal Ref Number CPPRC/A/E/22/00006
2. The answers received for the RTI was received on the 15th December 2022 which directed the PIO to grant me an appointment and hand over all the documents requested (attached as annex 2).
3. I received an appointment on the 27th March 2023 where the Executive manager and other officers of the CPWD (Pondicherry Project Division-Auroville- Villupuram District) informed me that they have to seek permission to disclose the information requested.
Please note that during the same appointment I have discussed and requested the officers to disclose information sought by me with RTI # CPWDS/R/E/22/00037 and CPPRC/R/T/22/00072.
Consecutively, I received a communication by email on the 29th March 2023 where CPWD was asking permission to disclose the information I requested. (See annex 3) Since then I have again urged the CPWD authority of the Pondicherry Project Division Auroville- Villupuram District- to provide the information but so far my request has been dismissed.
The Applicant, Dharmesh Vikramsinh Jadeja, seeking information under 6(1) OF THE RTI ACT, is not being supplied with the information sought and the payment of the amount of government fees as per GSR 336(4) (a) to (d) Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances New Delhi, have not yet been disclosed by the officers in charge. All attempts with the responsible authority have not yet received a satisfactory answer.
I urge your good self to do the needful and direct the CPIO to grant me a convenient appointment and hand over all the documents. In case documents that are confidential, please inform me why they are confidential."
Page 4 of 6Lastly, he urged the Commission to facilitate the opportunity of inspection of related records to the Complainant on a mutually decided specific date and time.
Respondent submitted that point-wise reply along with offer of inspection has been afforded to the Complainant initially, however, he did not avail the same. At the behest of the Commission, during hearing, both the parties agreed/decided to conclude the inspection of records at the Auroville Office on 06.08.2024 at 11 AM. Complainant was advised during the hearing to avail the same without waiting for the certified copy of this order.
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records notes that the instant matter is a complaint under the RTI Act, where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864; wherein their Lordships have held as under:
"the remedy for a person who had sought information and was refused information, was to make an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Their Lordships have held that the nature of power under Section 18 of the Act is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redressed in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. While holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position that an appeal under Section 18 of the Act cannot be filed before the Chief Information Officer. In the instant case, a complaint is filed under Section Page 5 of 6 18(1) of the Act. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint made by the second respondent herein is not sustainable."
The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 15.12.2022 No mala-fide is established on part of the CPIO in this case. Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant matter.
However, the Respondent is advised to fulfil the commitment made by them regarding affording inspection of records to the Complainant during the hearing in a time bound manner.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Central Public Works Department, O/o EE & Senior Manager (C), Pondicherry Project Circle, Auroville, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu - 605101.Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)