Central Information Commission
Sharad Bhadoriya vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 23 May, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NHAIN/A/2017/172771/SD
Sharad Bhadoriya ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of India,
G - 5 & 6, Sector 10,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075.
PIO
O/o the Project Director
National Highways Authority of India
Project Implementation Unit
53, Basant Vihar, Naubasta
Kanpur-208021 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
RTI application filed on : 05/06/2017
CPIO replied on : 12/06/2017
First appeal filed on : 06/07/2017
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal dated : 16/10/2017
Date of Hearing : 22/05/2019
Date of Decision : 22/05/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant in 4 points sought information regarding the amount collected at Toll Plaza no. 353, Anantram and Toll Plaza No. 438 Barajore situated at NH-19 from overloaded vehicles; details of the account where the amount collected from 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016 has been deposited and data of amount collected from such vehicles during the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.05.2016 and the parameter followed for charging the overloaded vehicles at these plazas.1
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Represented by Purushottam Lal Choudhary, GM/PD & PIO, National Highways Authority of India, PIU, Kanpur present in person.
Appellant stated that he has not received the complete information till date.
PIO submitted that the RTI Application was received upon transfer under Section 6(3) of RTI Act from NHAI/HQ vide letter dated 06.07.2017. He further submitted that Appellant has been provided appropriate reply vide letters dated 30.08.2017 and 15.05.2019 wherein available information has been provided and it has also been intimated that the concerned Concessionaire has denied to provide the details of toll charges collected from overloaded vehicles citing Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. A copy of letter dated 14.05.2019 of the concerned Concessionaire i.e Etawah Chakeri (Kanpur) Highway Pvt. Ltd was also submitted for perusal of the Commission wherein information has been denied under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. PIO furthermore submitted that it is the Concessionaire's case that the Appellant has been pursuing his service related grievance with them; therefore it is believed that disclosure of the information will harm their competitive position. He lastly reiterated that he has made efforts to procure the information from the Concessionaire but the same is being denied by them.
Based on the hearing proceedings, Purushottam Lal Choudhary, GM/PD & PIO, National Highways Authority of India, PIU, Kanpur is arrayed as Respondent No.2 in the matter.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that the reply provided by Respondent No.2 vide letter(s) dated 30.08.2017 and 15.05.2019 on paras 1 & 4 of the RTI Application is appropriate and warrants no intervention.2
File No : CIC/NHAIN/A/2017/172771/SD However, the denial of information on paras 2 & 3 of the RTI Application on the premise that the Concessionaire has denied the same under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act is summarily rejected. The Concessionaire being a private entity has no jurisdiction to invoke exemption clauses of RTI Act. It is not the case that Respondent No.2 has denied the information under the said exemption, rather he has, without any application of mind relied on the decision of the Concessionaire to deny the information. Even if by any inference, Commission were to consider that the exemption of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act has been claimed by Respondent No.2 himself, fact remains that the nature of information sought at paras 2 & 3 of the RTI Application has no relevance whatsoever to the commercial confidence of the Concessionaire. It may be noted that the NHAI Concessionaire(s) act in the capacity of service providers for NHAI, in other words, they are licensed inter alia to collect toll prescribed at government regulated rates on behalf of NHAI at toll booths; therefore there is no reason why the Concessionaire should deny data of toll collection. The import of "commercial confidence" as provided in Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act cannot be extended to the very services for which a commercial agreement is entered into by the Government of India with such Concessionaire(s).
Moreover, Respondent No.2 has failed to appreciate that information sought at para 2 of the RTI Application pertains to the Respondent office and not to the Concessionaire. Appellant has sought to know details of the NHAI account in which toll collected from the averred plazas during the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016 has been deposited. Respondent No.2 was supposed to provide the details of the NHAI account where this amount is deposited, and in case, the amount is not deposited in any of the NHAI accounts, the same should have been categorically intimated to the Appellant instead of harping on Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, Commission directs Respondent No.2 to provide specific and available information on para 2 of the RTI Application. In the event, toll charges are not deposited in any of the NHAI accounts; the same should be categorically stated in the PIO reply. As regards, information sought at para 3 of the RTI Application, PIO is directed to procure the available information from the concerned Concessionaire. In doing so, a copy of this order shall also be served by the PIO on the Concessionaire for timely compliance of the said direction.
3Commission also deems it fit to bring the aforesaid issue to the notice of Chairman, NHAI wherein information under RTI Act is being denied by the Concessionaire even as it is outside their jurisdiction. It is also appalling to note that Respondent No.2 has expressed his inability to procure the information related to data of toll collection from their own concessionaire (service provider).
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Copy to:
Chairman
National Highways Authority of India,
G - 5 & 6, Sector 10,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075
--(To take note of the adverse observations of the Commission) 4