Central Information Commission
Vipin Kumar Tyagi vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 8 June, 2023
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/2022/653043 +
CIC/NHAIN/A/2022/657905
VIPIN KUMAR TYAGI ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NHAI, PIU-2 NAGPUR, RTI CELL, BUNGLOW
NO. 1, SHUBHANKAR APPTS, PLOT NO 159,
AMBAZARI HILL TOP, RAM NAGAR,
NAGPUR-440033, M.H. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/06/2023
Date of Decision : 06/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28/05/2022 & 30/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 13/07/2022 & 01/09/2022
First appeal filed on : 28/07/2022 & 28/09/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 23/08/2022 & 20/10/2022
Second Appeal dated : 30/09/2022 & 31/10/2022
1
CIC/NHAIN/A/2022/653043
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"This Information is being sought as sequel to earlier RTI application no. NHAIN/R/E/21/01283 dated 26.03.2021 and RTI application no. NHAIN/R/E/22/00139 dated 13.01.2022 and their replies provided while vide letter no. NHA/PIU-2 NGP/RTI/2021/96 dated 20.04.2021 and letter no. NHA/PIU-
2 NGP/RTI/2022/1515 dated 21.02.2022 respectively. This information is related with project "Construction of ROB including one minor bridge and approaches with retaining wall at KM 8.674 near Khapri (Nagpur) (City portion on Nagpur- Hyderabad Section of NH-7 (NH-44)) in the state of Maharashtra on EPC mode". The information sought is as follows:
1) In the query no. 2 vide RTI application dated 26.03.2021, the information sought was regarding the specialized system supplier designing and supervising the reinforced soil wall (RE Wall for brevity) for the bridge approaches. The reply provided vide letter no. 96 dated 20.04.2021 was that it was M/s Hi-tech Geosynthetics (P) Ltd. which designed and supervised the reinforced soil wall.
However, as per our information, M/s Hi-Tech Geosynthetics (P) Ltd. was associated with this project only till May 2019 when only 3710.85 sqm of RE wall was completed. Thus, I would like to have following information in this regard:
a) Kindly state the name and address of the specialized system supplier who supervised the execution of balance RE wall between May 2019 and 30.03.2020.
b) Kindly state the name and address of the vendor who supplied the Koloties and polymeric connectors for balance RE wall between May 2019 and 30.03.2020. Kindly state whether Manufacturer's test reports were submitted for these materials. If yes, then I would like to have copy of the of these test reports.
c) Kindly state the name and designation of the engineers of the specialized system supplier, contractor (i.e., M/s D.P. Jain & Co. Infrastructure Private Limited), consultant and NHAI who were associated with the balance RE wall execution between May 2019 and 30.03.2020 in accordance with approved design and drawings and method statement.
22) In the query no. 4 of RTI application dated 26.03.2021, it was asked whether contractor has furnished the performance bond for RE wall to be supplied by the system supplier for 20 years in accordance with MORTH guidelines and the reply provided vide letter no. 96 dated 20.04.2021 was that the Contractor has not submitted this document till that date. That when the same query was again posed vide RTI application dated 13.01.2022, the reply provided vide letter no. 1515 dated 21.02.2022 was that the same was not specified in the contract. Based on above details, I would like to have following information:
a) Kindly state the name of agency which shall be responsible for the successful performance and safety of the RE wall as no performance bond has been provided by the contractor. This information becomes important as there has been change of supervising authority, geosynthetic materials being procured from different vendors and ambiguity in reliability of quality control measures after May 2019.
3) In query no. 4 of RTI application dated 13.01.2022, information was sought regarding the type of connectors that were used to connect the facia panels with the geosynthetics reinforcement i.e., Koloties being used in RE wall for the project.
This query was replied vide letter no. 1515 dated 21.02.2022 that Koloties were used to connect facia wall panels on one end and anchor pins of 12 mm dia steel bar on another end. However, that reply was incorrect and misleading since as per our information, Koloties relate to the panels through polymeric loops with facia panels on one end and anchor bars at other end as per approved drawings for this project. Thus, in this reference, I would like to have following information:
a) Kindly inform whether polymeric loops were used to connect Koloties with facia panels as per the approved drawings or not during balance RE wall execution between May 2019 and 30.03.2020 or not.
b) In case they were used, kindly state the name and address of the vendor who supplied these polymeric loops for RE wall work executed between May 2019 and 30.03.2020. Kindly state whether Manufacturer's test reports were submitted for these polymeric loops used between May 2019 and 30.03.2020. If yes, then kindly famish the copies of the same.
c) If in case polymeric loops were not used in RE wall as connectors in accordance with approved drawings in the aforesaid period of execution, then kindly inform about the alternative connectors used for the project as a deviation 3 from approved drawings and name and address of their supplier. Kindly inform me of the name of the agency who approved this deviation. In case of deviation in the use of connectors, whether Manufacturer's test reports for the same were submitted for that material connector. If yes, kindly furnish the copy of the same."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 13.07.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1:
(a) The Contractor had Initially engaged M/s HI-Tech Geosynthetics (P) Ltd as a specialized system supplier for the RE Wall Works. The Agency discontinued the execution of RE Wall Works in April 2019. As the other specialized system suppliers were occupied with existing commitments, in the interest of the completion of the Project, the Contractor had procured the balance material of RE Wall Works and executed the balance RE Wall Works by engaging other agency for labour portion based on approved design of RE Wall System.
b) Name of Vendor who supplied polymeric connectors: - IKON RUBBER Address of the Vendor:- Plot No. 85, Phase 1 Inside (Nitco Tile Co) IDA Jeedimetla Hyderbad-500055 Telangana-India Name of Vendor who supplied Koloties (Geostraps):-Maruti Techno Rubber Pvt Ltd.
Address of the Vendor:- B69 70, Sector 5, Near Harola Market, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, 201301.
Yes, Manufacturer Test Certificates for Polymeric Connectors &Kolotles (Geostraps)were provided and are annexed herewith.
c) Name of Engineer who supervised on behalf of Specialized System Supplier:-Mr. RamBabu Designation of the Engineer who Supervised on behalf of Specialized System Supplier-Project Manager Name of Engineer who supervised on behalf of the Contractor:-Mr. RamBabu Designation of the Engineer who Supervised on behalf of the Contractor:-Project Manager 4 Name of Engineer who supervised on behalf of Consultant:- Mr. Khan Asudullah Khan Designation of the Engineer who Supervised on behalf of the Consultant:- Team Leader Cum Bridge/ Structural Engineer Name of Engineer who supervised on behalf of NHAI:- ------------- Designation of Engineerwho Supervised on behalf of the NHAI:-( ----------) Point No. 2:
(a) D. P. Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Khalatkar Constructions (JV) shall be responsible for the successful performance and safety of the RE wall.
Point No. 3:
(a) a) Yes, polymeric loops were used to connect koloties with facia panels as per the approved drawings.
b) Yes, Name of Vendor who supplied polymeric loops:-IKON RUBBER Address of the Vendor:- Plot No. 85, Phase 1 Inside (Nitco Tile Co) IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderbad-500055 Telangana -India Manufacturer's Test report is attached herewith for your ready reference.
c) Not Applicable(NA)."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 23.08.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/NHAIN/A/2022/657905 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"This Information is being sought as sequel to earlier RTI application no. NHAIN/R/E/22/02508 dated 28.05.2022 and its belated reply provided vide letter no. NHAI/PIU-2 NGP/RTI/2022/504 dated 13.07.2022. This information is related with project "Construction of ROB including one minor bridge and approaches with retaining wall at KM 8.674 near Khapri (Nagpur) (City portion on Nagpur- Hyderabad Section of NH-7 (NH-44)) in the state of Maharashtra on EPC mode".
The information sought is as follows:
51) In the query no. 1 (a) vide RTI application dated 28.05.2022, the information sought was regarding the name and address of the specialized system supplier who supervised the execution of balance RE wall between May 2019 and 20.03.2020. The reply provided by CPIO vide letter no. 504 dated 13.07.2022 was that Hi-Tech Geosynthetics (P) discontinued the work by April 2019 and no specialized system supplier was engaged by the contractor for supervision of balance RE wall work. In that reference, I would like to have following information:
a) Kindly inform whether M/s Hi-Tech Geosynthetics (P) Ltd. (Hi-Tech for brevity) wrote any letter to contractor (M/s D. P. Jain & Co.
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) or consultant (Consulting Engineers Group ltd.) or NHAI intimating their intention to discontinue the execution and supervision of RE wall work after April 2009. If so, kindly provide copies of the same.
b) Kindly inform whether contractor wrote any letter to Hi-Tech or consultant or NHAI intimating about premature foreclosure of contract with Hi-Tech and their intent to continue the balance RE wall work on their own without supervision by any specialized system supplier between May 2019 and 30.03.2020. If so, kindly provide copies of the same.
c) Kindly inform about the name and address of the agency which was engaged by the contractor for executing the balance RE wall work on labour basis since May 2019 till 30.03.2020.
2) In the query no. 1 (b) vide RTI application dated 28.05.2022, the information sought was regarding the name and address of the vendor who supplied the Koloties and polymeric connectors for balance RE wall executed between May 2019 and 30.03.2020 and the copies of the Manufacturer's test reports for these products. CPIO's reply provided addresses of the vendors and copy of test reports for these products. However, the provided test reports suffer from various discrepancies. Firstly, they are not designated as Manufacturer Test Report so it is not evident whether these test reports were furnished by suppliers/traders or manufacturers of these products. Manufacturer test report prepared by a manufacturer contains the lot no. / run no. of the manufacturing material stock from which sample has been tested; the values of properties for geosynthetic material have to be specified as minimum average roll value (MARV) based on mean average value and standard deviation and not the actual values as specified 6 in the furnished test reports. Further, the test report furnished by M/s IKON Rubber do not specify the appropriate test standards used for measuring various properties of polymeric loop. In this reference, I would like to have following information:
a) Kindly inform whether these vendors are mere suppliers/traders or manufacturer of these products. Kindly inform us whether they have supplied the manufacturer test reports for these products and if so, kindly provide a copy of these manufacturer test reports.
b) In case these vendors are mere suppliers/traders of these products who have procured these products from other manufacturers, then the name and address of the manufacturers for these products should be provided. In case of these manufacturers providing the manufacturer test reports, the copy of the same shall be provided to the applicant.
c) Kindly confirm whether these vendors possess the ISO 9001 certification for manufacturing these products. If so, kindly provide the copy of that certification.
3) In the query no. 1 (c) vide RTI application dated 28.05.2022, the information sought was regarding the name and designation of the engineers of the specialized system supplier, contractor, consultant and NHAI associated with execution of balance RE wall between May 2019 and 30.03.2022. The CPIO failed to provide correct information about the engineers of specialized system supplier and NHAI. In that reference, I would like to have following information:
a) Kindly state whether the engineers of NHAI and consultant assigned to this project were cognizant of the fact that contractor was sourcing the geosynthetic products from different vendors for balance RE wall work. In case they were cognizant of this fact whether contractor intimated about this fact in writing to them. If so, kindly provide a copy of this correspondence.
b) Kindly state whether the engineers of NHAI and consultant assigned with this project were cognizant of the fact that contractor was executing the balance RE wall work without any supervision from any specialized system supplier. In case they were cognizant of this fact whether contractor 7 intimated about this fact in writing to them. If so, kindly provide a copy of this correspondence.
c) Kindly state the name and address of the vendor who supplied steel moulds for casting of RE wall panels for balance RE wall work between May 2019 and 30.03,2020 after Hi-Tech discontinued the work.
4) In the query no. 2 (a) vide RTI application dated 28.05.2022, the information sought was regarding the agency which shall be responsible for the successful performance and safety of RE wall for this project. The CPIO has informed that M/s D.P. Jain & Co. Infrastructure Ltd. -- Khalatkar Constructions (JV) shall be responsible for the performance and safety of RE wall. In that reference, I would like to have following information:
a) Kindly inform whether contractor has furnished any legal undertaking in writing to NHAI and consultant backed by some bank guarantee that he will compensate the client in case of any failure in performance and safety of RE wall. If so, kindly furnish the copy of same.
5) In the query no. 3 (a) & (b) of RTI application dated 28.05.2022, it was asked whether polymeric loops in accordance with approved drawings were used for balance RE wall work. The SPIO informed that polymeric loops as per approved drawings were used to connect Koloties with facia panels and the same were supplied by M/s IKON Rubber. In that reference, I would like to have following information:
a) Kindly inform the number of polymeric loops procured from M/s Ikon Rubber for balance RE wall work between May 2019 and 30.03.2020. Kindly provide any written documentation in this regard."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 01.09.2022 stating as under:
"The information is not on record of this office."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.09.2022. FAA's order, dated 20.10.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
8Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Vilas Dharmendra, PD/PIU & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of his RTI Application vehemently contested the fact that the information furnished by the CPIO is incomplete, false and misleading. He urged for complete relief as sought for in the matters.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant. He further explained the fact that the they are not privy to the contract between the contractor and sub-contractor (names as mentioned above) for which the Appellant has sought information as they are having their own internal arrangements and such records are not maintained by NHAI authorities as such.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that through the impugned RTI Application the Appellant has sought for humungous information which majorly does not conform to Section 2 (f) of RTI Act and and also appears to be voluminous in nature, collation and compilation of which would entail diversion of manpower resources of the Public Authority and thus, cannot be provided in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from the relevant provisions of Section 7(9) of RTI Act which is reproduced below for ready reference -
"...7. Disposal of request.--
xxx (9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question..."9
It also appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. xxxxx The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note 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. For the sake of clarity relevant provision of Section 2(f) of RTI Act is reproduced below:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also invited towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the 10 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any 11 electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Nonetheless, the replies furnished by the CPIO to assist the Appellant are in the spirit of RTI, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter. However, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 12 13