Central Information Commission
Mr.Ramesh Chandra vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 13 June, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001092/2733
13 June 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Chandra
S/o Shri S. D. Padliya
Gali no. 7, Shanti Kunj,
Kotdwar Road, Lakhanpur,
Ramnagar, Nainital- 244715
Respondent : CPIO & Dy. General Manager (Admin)
BSNL
O/o the General Manager Telecom District
Nanital, Haldwani
Uttaranchal
RTI application filed on : 10/03/2012
PIO replied on : 09/04/2012
First appeal filed on : 23/04/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 26/04/2012
Second Appeal received on : 16/07/2012
Information sought:
1- Kindly provide information as to BRS work for which AO(Cash) BSNL, Haldwani is pressurizing the appellant have ever been given any kind of training, if yes then when and where and by which officer. Whether any TA/DA allowance has been paid during the training etc. 2- When will this continuous pressurization be stopped and what action the department has taken against this, provide complete information. 3- Whether any departmental order has been issued to AO (Cash) by GMTD/Dy. GM(Admin) for BRS Works.
4- Why AO (Cash) has not submitted affidavit in the court for security and safety of applicant. 5- Provide following information:
(i) Copy of work order which has been issued by AO (Cash) during the period 15/02/2005 to till date.
(ii) What were the results of Legal and Business review?
(iii) Details of legal review on Pay related to AO (Cash), HQ, Haldwani.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not given the satisfactory information.Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar CPIO through VC 09412000627 The CPIO stated that the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 10/03/2012 has been provided vide letter dated 31/03/2012. He further stated that from a plain reading of the appellant's RTI queries under points 2, 3, 4 & 5(ii) it is apparent that the information sought is interrogatory in nature/asking for reasons, which is not 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant is not present for making his submissions/contesting the facts.
Decision notice:
From the CPIO's submissions it appears that the information has been provided. If, however, the appellant needs any further information regarding his RTI application dated 10/03/2012 the CPIO should permit him to inspect the relevant records and also take photocopies/extracts therefrom, free of cost, up to 10 pages within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Page 2 of 2