Central Information Commission
Lal Chand Meena vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 18 January, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NHAIN/C/2020/667859 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2020/667858
Lal Chand Meena ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways authority of
India, RTI cell, project
Implementation Unit-Kota,
1-C_10, SFS Colony, Talwandi,'
Kota-324005, Rajasthan. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/01/2022
Date of Decision : 12/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeal/ Complaint have been clubbed for decision as
these are based on the same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint/appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/12/2019 & 16/12/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record & N.A.
First appeal filed on : 20/02/2020 & 20/02/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 03/03/2020 & 03/03/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
CIC/NHAIN/C/2020/667859
CIC/NHAIN/A/2020/667858
1
Information sought:
The Complainant/Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 16.12.2019 seeking the following information;
"1. Sir, I have filed a complaint on the CPGRAM portal of GoI with the Reg. No. MORTH/E/2019/05735 dated 10/10/2019. I have also given 2 reminders of the above Grievance dated 11/10/2019 and 03/11/2019 resp. I have not received a single reply from your office after the completion of more than 2 months. Kindly provide the detailed answer of my above Grievance.
2. Sir, Please indicate the progress made on my Grievance so far i.e. when did my grievance reach which officer, for how long did it stay with that officer and what did he/she do during that period.
3. Please provide the reason for delay of the dispose of my Grievance.
4. If the file has been with any official/officer for more than 7 working days - which is the contravention of section 10(1) of the Act XXI of 2006, detail of action initiated against him under section 10(2) of the Act."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.02.2020. FAA's order dated 03.03.2020 stated as follows:-
"CPIO-Kota has submitted that PIU-Kota office has already replied to Mr. Lal Chand Meena w.r.t. his grievances bearing R.No. MORTH/E/2019/05735 dated 10.10.2019 and PMOPG/E/2019/0714634 dated 17.12.2019 through email on 07.11.2019 and 08.01.2020 respectively.
As, grievances of appellant have already been disposed-off and replied to appellant through email on 07.11.2019 and 08.01.2020 respectively. Therefore, no further action is required to be taken by CPIO- Kota in the matter."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Complainant/Appellant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: J P Gupta, GM (T)/PD/PIU & CPIO, present through audio- conference.
The Appellant/Complainant although affirmed the receipt of the information from the CPIO on 19.08.2021, however he expressed his dissatisfaction to the inordinate delay caused by the CPIO in providing the same which is in violation of RTI Act. He further narrated his grievance regarding action/inaction of NHAI authorities in remitting compensation to land owners on acquisition of land for construction of road highways.
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 07.01.2022 wherein it was mentioned that instant RTI Application has been received by him on transfer through online RTI portal from the CPIO, NHAI New Delhi on 24.07.2021 and a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has been provided to the Appellant on 19.08.2021.
Decision The Commission at the outset upon perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the PIO, NHAI Kota as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant/Complainant as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief to be add on in the matter.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant/Complainant regarding the action/inaction of NHAI Authorities in grant of compensation is purely a matter of grievance which does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant/Complainant is advised to address this issue through administrative channel.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission takes grave exception to the factum of delay caused by the concerned CPIO, NHAI, New Delhi in transferring the RTI Application to the CPIO, NHAI, Kota. This fact is evident from the record that as per action history on online RTI portal, the RTI Application has been forwarded to Manish Asati, CPIO- NHAI HQ. on 17.12.2019 who kept it pending with him till 08.07.2021 i.e. more than 18 months. Such colossal casual conduct of Manish Asati, CPIO, NHAI Headquarters tantamount to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant/Complainant's right to information and is in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act.
3In view of the above, Manish Asati, CPIO, NHAI, Headquarter is hereby directed to file his written explanation to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of RTI Act for causing such delay. The written explanation of the said CPIO along with supporting documents, if any should be filed with the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
J P Gupta, GM (T)/PD/PIU & CPIO, NHAI, Kota should ensure service of this order through speed post and/or via email for timely compliance of the above direction under due intimation to the Commission.
The Complaint/Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4