Central Information Commission
Ravi Kumar vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 6 July, 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/2021/632068
Ravi Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highway Authority Of India,
RTI Cell, PIU Sonipat, A-3 UGF,
Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura,
New Delhi-110034. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/07/2022
Date of Decision : 05/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02/05/2021
CPIO replied on : 21/05/2021
First appeal filed on : 16/06/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 08/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22/07/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.05.2021 seeking the following information:
"As per notification dated 04.12.2020 Published by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways in Gazette of India vide Gazette ID No-CG-DL-E-07122020- 223554 (Copy Annexed as Annexure 2) regarding land to be acquired in NH-334B 1 of Gram Panchayat Bahal-Garh which includes Vacant Agriculture Land, Residential houses of Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojna (A residential colony developed by Govt. of Haryana) and a Three Pond System/ Johar lies in Killa No. 27//19-22 & 28//25.
In this reference, please provide us the para-wise reply.
1. In reference to acquirement of the aforesaid land vide aforesaid details, If there any permission was taken from District Administration, Sonepat i.e. (Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, Panchayati Raj Dept) by NHAI. If yes then provide us the certified copy of the document showing permission to NHAI & if "No" then the answer should give as "NO" specifically.
2. Regarding the change in alignment of NH-334B in stretch near to RGEC, Sonepat & land of Gram Panchayat Bahal-Garh, if any communication made or received by NHAI regarding the change of alignment to District Administration Sonepat, then provide us the certified copies of the letters & communications & if no then the answer should be given as "NO"."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 21.05.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point No. 1:- It is informed that the land has been acquired for 4-laning of UP/Haryana border to Rohna, Sonepat section of NH-334B under provisions of National Highway Act, 1956.
Point no.2:- Minutes of Meeting dated 28.02.2019 is annexed for your information and you may visit the office at A3, UGF, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 (10:00 AM to 06:00 PM) to see the record on any working day with prior intimation to this office."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.06.2021. FAA's order dated 08.07.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of incomplete and misleading reply provided by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Gajendra Singh, Manager/ PIU & Rep. of CPIO present through intra- video-conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the factual contents of RTI Applications contested that reply in the form of 'Yes' or 'No' has not been furnished by the CPIO till date. With regards to point no. 2 of RTI Application, he further harped on the fact that the minutes of meetings supplied by the CPIO pertain to the year 2019, while he had sought the requisite information for the year 2020 which in itself reflects the unrelated information has been supplied by the CPIO. In response to it, the Commission apprised the Appellant that the issues / queries raised in the instant RTI Application are more in the nature of seeking interrogatories and clarifications which do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
The Rep. of the CPIO submitted that the relevant available information has already been provided to the Appellant. However, at the behest of the Commission, he agreed to reiterate an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant.
The Appellant interjected to pray for directing the CPIO to give an undertaking to the effect that records of permissions from the District Administration granted for land acquisition of 2020 is not available in their office records.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application is in the form of seeking answers to the interrogatories,clarifications and justifications which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Yet, the CPIO has provided the available information and relevant inputs in a point-wise manner.
Adverting to the insistence of the Appellant during the hearing seeking clarifications in "Yes" or "No" and also undertaking from the CPIO regarding non- availability of records for 2020; it shall be noted 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.3
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is 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) Now, considering the submissions of the Rep. of the CPIO during hearing, the CPIO is directed to reiterate the offer of inspection of the relevant and available records related to the instant RTI Application to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time. The intimation of the date & time of inspection will be provided to the Appellant telephonically and in writing by the CPIO. Copy of documents, as identified and desired by the Appellant shall be provided free of cost upto 50 pages and thereafter upon receipt of RTI fees as per RTI Rules, 2012 be provided by the CPIO. The CPIO is also directed to ensure that due assistance is provided to the Appellant during the inspection in accessing and identifying the records.
The above said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO incorporating the details of the records provided for the inspection and copies thereof, immediately thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5