Central Information Commission
Sandeep Saxena vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 10 March, 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/2020/127033
Sandeep Saxena ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of
India, PIU Allahabad & PIU, Naini
Bridge, 18-C/28-A, Sarojini Naidu Marg,
Near A G Office, Civil Lines, Allahabad,
Uttar Pradesh - 211001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/03/2022
Date of Decision : 07/03/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/09/2019
CPIO replied on : 17/01/2020
First appeal filed on : 30/11/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 20/12/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08/09/2020
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.09.2019 seeking the following information pertaining to a letter dated 14.09.2017:
Please provide me with copy of complete note sheets /related correspondence and all related file record through which the subject matter of the referred letter is being dealt in your office w.e.f the date this letter was received in your office to till date reply to this RTI application is being provided.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.11.2019. FAA's order dated 20.12.2019 directed the CPIO to provide relevant information to the Appellant within 10 days under due intimation to the FAA.
Subsequently, the CPIO replied to the appellant on 17.01.2020 stating as follows:-
"The information desired by you contains voluminous pages of-records. Hence, it is requested to visit this office on 29.01.2020 at 11 AM for inspection of the documents available in this office pertaining to the information desired by you."
Further, the CPIO vide reminder letter dated 03.02.2020 offered another date of 12.02.2020 for inspection of documents to the Appellant. In response to it, the Appellant vide letter dated 01.02.2020 requested the CPIO again to provide copies of the relevant information to him.
On 13.02.2020, in response to Appellant's letter dated 01.02.2020, the CPIO requested the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,768/- as photocopying charges for relevant information.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of information from the CPIO and also arbitrary demand of RTI fees of Rs. 7,768/- from CPIO against relevant information which ought to have been provided to Appellant free of cost in view of Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.2
Respondent: Pankaj Mishra, PD/PIU & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on the following grounds -
"......b. Because, the respondent was duty bound to provide information complying with decision/order of first Appellate Authority consequent to first appeal of the appellant, but information was not provided on pretext of it being voluminous calling appellant for inspection of records and then for want of payment as charges for information in contravention of order /provisions of RTI Act.
c. Because, the CPIO was duty bound to provide the appropriate information as sought by the appellant on order/decision of First Appellate authority as per provisions of the RTI Act, but firstly he did not respond to application of appellant seeking information within stipulated time, secondly he was wrong in asking appellant for inspection of record, and lastly he asked the appellant to make payment for the information sought flouting decision/ order of appellate authority in contravention of provisions of section 7(9) & 7(6) respectively of RTI Act.
d. Because, the learned CPIO has not used his powers diligently and fairly bestowed on him under RTI Act, 2005 by not abiding by his duties of responding to the request for information of Appellant, by not honouring the decision of appellate authority and the provisions of RTI Act in their spirit thereby depriving the appellant of his legitimate right to information. e. Because it is wrongly/untruthfully claimed by respondent in his communication/ Letter dated20-07-2020 that he has already replied to queries of appellants application dated 24-09-2019 seeking information. f. Because, the information sought by the appellant is not in the ambit of section 8 & Section 9 of the RTI Act, and so is not exempted from being disclosed. Hence there is no impediment in disclosure of factual information to the Appellant, as such in the present case the depriving the Appellant of information is unwarranted and apparently deliberate and against the provisions of RTI Act..."
The CPIO submitted that the first reply was provided to the Appellant on 17.01.2020 informing him that since the information sought was voluminous in nature, hence an opportunity of inspection of relevant records has been offered and subsequently, on various occasions the said opportunity has been reiterated to the Appellant, however he did not avail of the same and requested for providing the relevant information on 01.02.2020. The CPIO further added that vide letter dated 13.02.2020 the Appellant was asked to submit Rs. 7,768/- in 3 lieu of photocopying charges for the requisite information, however no amount has been remitted by the Appellant till date hence, no information has been furnished to him.
The Appellant interjected to state that the CPIO's reply has been provided to him after expiry of stipulated period and he also harped on the fact that no calculation/bifurcation of demanded RTI fees of Rs 7,768 has been provided by the CPIO as per Section 7(3) of RTI Act. Therefore, he prayed the Commission that information should be provided to him now free of cost in view of Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
To a query from the Commission regarding the reason for delay in reply, the CPIO initially tendered his unconditional regret and pleaded that he was not holding the charge at that time and further attempted to explain in a vague manner that all the incumbent officers of Respondent were engaged in completion of a six lane highway project at Varanasi and hence causes for delay in reply.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset takes grave exception to the fact that no reply has been provided by then CPIO, NHAI - Prayagraj within stipulated time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act and also no substantial explanation for such delay has been tendered by CPIO during hearing shows disdainful conduct of the NHAI, Prayagraj in dealing with the RTI matters which causes unwarranted obstruction to Appellant's right to information and is also in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of the above, the then CPIO, NHAI- Prayagraj through the present CPIO is hereby directed to send his written explanation to the Commission as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of RTI Act for not giving timely response coupled with relevant information. The aforesaid written explanation of the then CPIO, NHAI- New Delhi along with supportive documents, if any should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pankaj Mishra, present CPIO should ensure service of this order to the then CPIO at his current corresponding address for timely compliance of above direction.4
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further notes from a close scrutiny of CPIO's reply dated 13.02.2020 regarding demand of RTI fees of Rs. 7,768/ that the same was rather evasive and largely fails to comply with the provisions of Section 7(3) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of CPIO is brought to the relevant provisions of Section 7(3) of RTI Act which is as under -
(3) Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall send an intimation to the person making the request, giving--
(a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section;
The aforesaid fact is evident from the record that the CPIO vide averred reply has failed to give details of calculation of number of pages of information sought in their reply dated 13.02.2020 and also failed to facilitate such details during hearing to assist the bench. Such colossal conduct of the CPIO is viewed adversely by the bench with a strict caution to the CPIO to exercise due diligence while dealing with the RTI matter in future.
Now, considering the prayer of Appellant and also the efflux of time the Commission hereby directs Pankaj Mishra, present CPIO, NHAI- Prayagraj to take all the necessary steps to procure the available information as sought for in the instant RTI Application from the concerned record holder and provide it directly to the Appellant. The said information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6