CIC: Since the information sought by the appellant pertain to DRO Panchkula (who is a State official) to whom his RTI application had been duly transferred by the PIO u/s 6(3), the appellant may pursue the same before the appropriate State authority
16 Oct, 2017
ORDER
Appeal No. CIC/NHAIN/A/2017/183755/MP
1. Shri Ram Chopra, the appellant, sought the map and the details of specific demarcation of land with directions, measuring 12 Marlas out of total land measuring 4 Kanal & 2 Marlas in Khasra Nos. 35//6/2/3/2/1/3 and 35//26/2/1, at Village Sabalpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt.- Yamunanagar, acquired by the State Govt. of Haryana due to widening of NH-73; specific details of the land at Serial No. 58 for which total valuation worth Rs. 21,15,289/- had been released in the compensation list released by Project Director, NHAI Chandigarh along with the video recording of the said land prepared at the time of survey for valuation; reasons for not releasing the compensation in favor of Shri Managt Ram and Shri sham sunder whose land had been acquired by NHAI.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed the appellant that information sought by him under point 1 & 2 of the RTI application pertained to demarcation of land which was not maintained in their office and advised the appellant to obtain the same from the Revenue official of the area concerned further, as far as point 3 of the application was concerned, the CPIO requested the appellant to seek clear and specific information and transferred the appellant’s RTI application u/s 6(3) to DRO Panchkula, for providing information on points 4 & 5 to the appellant, directly. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO’s response, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA), with a request to direct the PIO to provide the information specifically sought by the appellant, on all the points of his RTI application. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter. Aggrieved with the FAA’s response, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO had incorrectly denied information to the appellant as it was holding the desired information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete and correct information.
RTI application : 9.5.2016
CPIO’s reply : 3.6.2016
First appeal : 13.6.2016
FAA’s order : 14.7.2016
Second appeal : 21.7.2016
Appeal No. CIC/NHAIN/A/2017/161067/MP
1. Shri Ram Chopra, the appellant, sought to know the reasons for omission of the land bearing Khasra No. 35//6/2/3/2/1/3 at Village Sabalpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt.- Yamunanagar, a part of which had been acquired as per the Revenue Records, due to widening of NH-73, from the structured compensation list released by NHAI Panchkula along with the names of the officials responsible for the said omission; procedure adopted by NHAI for field survey to authenticate ownership of shops/lands being acquired/demolished for the widening of NH-73; logic of proportional payment to all the owners in Khasra Nos. 35//6/2/3/2/1/3 and 35//26/2/1, at Village Sabalpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. – Yamunanagar; etc., through six points.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) gave a point wise response to the appellant’s RTI application. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO’s response, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA), stating that the CPIO had provided irrelevant and rather misleading information as the DRO Panhckula does not hold the information in question and requested the FAA to direct the PIO to provide the information specifically sought by the appellant, on all the points of his RTI application. On behalf of the FAA, the CPIO informed the appellant that the FAA had directed the PIO to write a letter to the DRO Panchkula to provide the requested information to the appellant as, the information sought pertained to DRO. Aggrieved with the FAA’s response, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission with a request to direct the CPIO to provide complete and correct information.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that the CPIO had not given the desired information under point 1 & 2 of the RTI application dated 30.8.2016 relating to the copy of map, the details of specific demarcation of land with directions, measuring 12 Marlas out of total land measuring 4 Kanal & 2 Marlas in Khasra Nos. 35//6/2/3/2/1/3 and 35//26/2/1, at Village Sabalpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt.- Yamunanagar, acquired by the State Govt. of Haryana due to widening of NH-73. The appellant added that the CPIO had given misleading response that the information sought by him in the RTI applications dated 30.8.2016 & 9.5.2016 was held by DRO Panchkula, on most of the points of both the RTI applications when in fact, information was held by NHAI.
4. The respondent stated that the CPIO had given the available information, as per the records and as available with NHAI office, to the appellant. The respondent reiterated their stand that NHAI did not acquire the land but, all the land details including the Demarcation Report was held by DRO Panchkula who is a State Govt. official.
5. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the CPIO has appropriately responded to the appellant’s both the RTI applications dated 30.8.2016 & 9.5.2016. Under the RTI Act, a public authority is supposed to provide only the existing and available information as held by it or under its control. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as follows:-
“35. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.”
The Commission further observes that since the information as sought by the appellant in both his RTI applications pertain to DRO Panchkula to whom his RTI application had been duly transferred by the CPIO u/s 6(3) and who is a State official, the appellant may pursue the same before the appropriate State authority concerned with the matter. Both the appeals are disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Ram Chopra v. National Highways Authority of India in Appeal No. CIC/NHAIN/A/2017/183755/MP Appeal No. CIC/NHAIN/A/2017/161067/MP, Date of Decision: September 27, 2017