Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Kondamuri Kusuma Nagendra Prasad vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 13 May, 2025

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/2024/108924

Shri. Kondamuri Kusuma Nagendra Prasad                            ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Highways Authority of India                     ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                           :   08.05.2025
Date of Decision                          :   08.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner            :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :            11.11.2023
PIO replied on                    :            25.11.2023
First Appeal filed on             :            02.12.2023
First Appellate Order on          :            04.01.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :            21.03.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

"1. Please furnish copies of approvals granted by your good-selves to those private business establishments of both sides located beyond service road permitted direct accessibility to main carriageway between 69/0 K.M. to 70/8 K.M. of NH-216 i.e. from Ravi Junior College located at Village Sunkarapalem to approach road of GMC Balayogi Varadhi Bridge at Yanam etc."

The CPIO, Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Machhilipatnam vide letter dated 25.11.2023 replied as under:-

"This office has issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for only two retail outlets, located between Km. 69/0 and Km. 70/80. The details of these retail outlets are as follows:

1. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Km. 67.915-67.948 (LHS).

2. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Km 64.266 to Km. 296.90 (RHS)."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.12.2023. The FAA, Regional Officer, Vijaywada vide order dated 04.01.2024 stated as under:-

"4. Whereas, duly considering all the facts, circumstances, correspondence of the case, the undersigned passed order as below:

i) The appellant has sought information regarding 'No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to those private business establishments of both sides located beyond service road permitted direct accessibility to main carriageway between Km.69.00 to 70.80 of NH-216'.

ii) PIO, MORTH, RO, Vijayawada has transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) of RTI act vide letter No. RO/VJA/Misc.38/MORTH-M-NHAI-3932 dated 03.11.2023 to Project Director, PIU, Machilipatnam for providing the information directly to the applicant as the stretch is under their jurisdiction.

iii) Accordingly, PD, PIU, MORTH, Machilipatnam has examined the matter and provided information to the applicant along with Xerox copies of NoCs issued (copy enclosed for ready reference) vide their letter No. MoRTH/PIU//MPT/Misc.38/RTI/NH-216/1332 dated 25.11.2023 along with copies of supporting documents.

iv) From the above details, it is clearly established that PIO of this office has transferred the RTI application to PD, PIU, MORTH, Machilipatnam & PD, PIU, MORTH, Machilipatnam has provided the requisite information directly to the applicant."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 05.05.2025 has been received from CPIO, Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Machhilipatnam reiterating the aforementioned facts and emphasising that the Respondents have fully complied with the requirements of the RTI Act, and no lapse can be attributed to the Public Information Officer, PD, PIU, MoRTH, Machilipatnam.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri B S Sreenivasan - Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Machhilipatnam and Shri Shashank Shekhar Rai - CPIO, Regional Officer were present through video conference during hearing.

Both parties reiterated their respective contentions with the Respondent stating that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act. Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally accurate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

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)