Central Information Commission
Binod Agarwal vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India on 29 March, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/TRAOI/C/2020/688698
In the matter of:
Binod Agarwal
... Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Department of Telecommunication
Director General (Telecom) HQ, Mumbai LSA,
O/o Sr. DDG, 5th Floor, Technical Block,
Saki Vihar Telephone Exchange Building,
Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 072
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 24/04/2020 CPIO replied on : 14/05/2020 First appeal filed on : Not on Record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Complaint filed on : 11/10/2020 Date of Hearing : 28/03/2022 Date of Decision : 28/03/2022 The following were present: Complainant: Present over VC Respondent: Hari Narayan, Director & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information in respect of his Mobile No. 9833425075 (Airtel):
1. Whether the above mobile phone was under surveillance or tracking or tapping since 01/09/2017.
2. Under whose direction and by which agency the said mobile number has been placed under surveillance or tracking or tapping. Provide a copy of the application made by the said agency seeking above direction.1
3. Provide information regarding agency/officers seeking CDR/SDR/IPDR of above mentioned mobile No. from 01/09/2017 to till date.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the information was incorrectly denied to him. He further submitted that his written submissions dated 02.03.2022 may be taken on record wherein he has relied on an earlier order passed by the Commission in File No. CIC/TRAOI/A/2017/153720 dated 13.09.2018. He also submitted that if the CPIO is claiming that they are not under the purview of TRAI Act, the same should have been communicated earlier. He requested that his RTI may be transferred to TRAI if the information is available with them. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the complainant on 14.05.2020. He also reiterated the contents of his submissions dated 16.03.2022 while stating that no information is available with them.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the complainant had sought certain information about his mobile number from DoT. However, the CPIO in his reply had clearly stated that the sought for information is not available with them. It was further stated that Mumbai LSA DoT neither collects nor is mandated in any law to collect the information as sought in the RTI Application from Licensed Telecom Service Providers. Further, as per the License agreement commercial records with regard to the communications exchanged on the network are taken from Licensed Telecom Service Provider for security reasons only. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply nor is any malafide intent established as what is not available cannot be provided.
With regard to the prayer of the complainant that his RTI application may be transferred to TRAI, the same cannot be done as in a complaint case, the moot issue is to see whether there was any malafide intent on the part of the CPIO to deny the information or not. Hence, no relief whatsoever, can be given.2
Decision:
In view of the above, no action is required.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3