Central Information Commission
Rambir Singh vs Telecom Disputes Settlement & ... on 2 September, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/TDSAT/A/2018/146511/01525
File no.: CIC/TDSAT/A/2018/146511
In the matter of:
Rambir Singh
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal
Room No. 482, 4th Floor, Hotel Samrat,
Kautilya Marg, New Delhi - 110 021
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/01/2018 CPIO replied on : 23/01/2018 First appeal filed on : 01/04/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 02/05/2018 Second Appeal dated : 22/06/2018 Date of Hearing : 02/09/2019 Date of Decision : 02/09/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pant, Desk Officer & CPIO alongwith Shri Ajay Shanker Bajpai, Assistant & ACPIO, both present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. The procedure for fixing of date of hearing in the pending cases in the TDSAT.
2. The time provided in advance by the TDSAT to inform the litigant regarding hearing in the pending cases.1
3. The mode of informing the litigants of the pending cases in the TDSAT.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the response of the CPIO on points no. 2-7 of the RTI application as no such information is available either in the booklet of TDSAT procedures or on TDSAT's website (www.tdsat.qov.in).
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 23.01.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the contention of the appellant is that the reply provided by the CPIO is not correct as he could not find the relevant information on the specific points raised by him either on the website referred to by the CPIO nor in the TDSAT's handbook of procedures. With regard to points no. 2 & 6, the appellant had sought the time provided in advance by the TDSAT to inform the litigant regarding hearing in the pending cases. To this, the CPIO submitted that there is no specified time gap for giving notice to the concerned parties as it is for the Court to decide when the matter is to be listed for hearing. The CPIO is accordingly directed to give a revised reply to the appellant. On point no. 3, the CPIO is directed to specifically mention the mode of informing the litigants. On point no. 4, the CPIO is directed to provide the minimum and maximum time given to the litigants for the hearing of pending cases, as per the practice followed by them. Point no. 5 is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. On point no. 7, the CPIO should provide only the designation of the officers who are responsible for informing the litigants about next date of hearing in the pending cases.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the CPIO is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the appellant as per the discussion 2 File no.: CIC/TDSAT/A/2018/146511 during the hearing with regard to points no. 2-7 of the RTI application, within a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of the order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3