Central Information Commission
Agam Shukla vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 14 November, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NHAIN/A/2024/638214
Shri Agam Shukla ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Highways Authority of India ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2024
Date of Decision : 12.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.05.2024
PIO replied on : 18.06.2024
First Appeal filed on : 19.06.2024
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 30.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"Notesheet from dt. 05.10.2020 till today i.e. dt. 13.5.2024 of the case of provisional Access NOC for construction of an approach road and slab culvert for proposed retail outlet of JOCL of old NH-06 (New NH-53 Jat Khasra по. 102/1, 102/2, Ph. no. 5, Village Kaciajhar, Tehsil + Dist. Mahasamund CG.""
The CPIO, NHAI, PIU-Raipur vide letter dated 18.06.2024 replied as under:-
"2. In this regard, please refer the Section 8 sub section (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which states that: "Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information" 2. Since the information sought by you is personal which does not relate to any public activity or interest, hence, information cannot be provided for sr. No. 6 under sub-section (j) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005."Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2024 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 03.11.2024 has been received from the Appellant seeking exemption from attending hearing on account of his disability. He has also contended that the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cited by the Respondent to deny are not applicable in this case since information sought is not personal in nature and does not refer to any third party individual. While narrating the background of the case, the Appellant has averred that: NHAI access NoC no.5006 dt. 3.10.2020 was issued to him omitting the fact of presence of truck lay too near to the plot, despite the mention of the same in the office notesheet. Consequently, the Appellant had been restrained by NHAI from making any construction in the petrol pump and make it functional, despite having issued the aforementioned NoC.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Pankaj Ojha - DGM and Shri Prakhar Agarwal were present through video conference during hearing.
The Appellant was not present due to his physical condition and had requested that his contentions from the written submission be considered during hearing.
The Respondent was not able to explain the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in this case since no personal information had been sought by the Appellant. It was submitted by the respondent that petrol pump regarding which the Appellant had sought the information was an IOCL unit and NHAI had no role in the same. However, undeniably the NHAI access NoC no.5006 dt. 3.10.2020 referred by the Appellant related to the respondent and had been issued to the Appellant. Hence information pertaining to the said is neither third party information nor personal in nature. It is not disputed that the notesheet sought by the Appellant referred to the NOC issued to him by NHAI.
Decision:
In the light of the facts which emerged from the records and the averments of both parties, the contention of the respondent of denying information citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is thus legally unacceptable and not sustainable in law. Under the circumstances of the case at hand, the Respondent - PIO, NHAI is cautioned to be careful while denying disclosure of information and avoid misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of the RTI Act, in future. The Respondent is directed to revisit the queries raised by the Appellant and furnish information sought by him strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act, redacting information only if is expressly barred under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act, invoking the provisions of Section 10 of Page 2 of 3 the RTI Act. The reply shall be sent to the Appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report must be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission within one week thereafter. It is made clear that non adherence of the aforesaid directions shall attract penal action on the defaulting Respondent, as per law.
The appeal is disposed off with these directions.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)