Central Information Commission
Mr.Shaikh Rauf Abdul Raheman vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India on 18 February, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/BS/A/2012/000006/1903
18 February 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shaikh Rauf Adbul Raheman
Police Inspector
J.210, Krishna Enclave,
Ahmednagar-414001 (M.S.)
Respondent : CPIO
Telecom regulatory Authority of India
Mahanagar Door Sanchar Bhawan
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
Old Minto Road, New Delhi- 110002
RTI applications filed on : 28/12/2011
PIO replied on : 07/02/2012
First appeals filed on : 10/02/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 14/03/2012
Second Appeal received on : 03/04/2012
Information sought:
a) 'Kaun Banega Karodpati" a T.V. Game Show on Sony T.V. Channel hosted by Shri. Amitabh Bacchan.
In this T.V. game show he used to ask a Question to the Viewers in each episode for the prize of Rs. 1 Lakh (Ghar Baite Jito Jackpot) The Viewers have to answer the question through land line telephone or mobile SMS to the numbers given by him on the channel during the telecast of the game show.
b) Please furnish the names and address of all landline telephone and mobile service provider companies of the above T.V. game show.
c) Please furnish the calling rates (charges) for landline telephone and mobile SMS' respectively charged by all the above companies for each single landline call and SMS.
d) Please furnish the Number of landline calls and SMS received for the questions asked by Shri Amitabh Bacchan from 15.08.11 to 17.11.11 (Please furnish the date wise and company wise information)
e) Please furnish the details of total landline calls and Mobile SMS' received by the different service provider companies from the viewers in India and abroad.
f) Total cost of the landline calls and mobile SMS from 15/08/11 to 17/11/11.
g) Total Amount of Govt. Service Tax levied on the total landline calls and mobile SMS received by different service providers for the above game show.
h) The percentage of share of the total amount received by landline calls and mobile SMS between different service providers and Sony TV Channela.
i) If this TV game show which is answered by millions of people is permitted through landline calls and mobile SMS' by Law please furnish the details of the Law and it's Rules.
j) Please furnish the details of the Outgoing calls made by Shri Amitabh Bacchan to the winners in each episode of the game show?
Page 1 of 3Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Shaikh Rauf Adbul Raheman through VC Respondent: Mr. V.K. Saxena CPIO (M: 9811645205) The CPIO states that TRAI's powers and functions are contained in Section 11, 12 and 13 of the TRAI Act and under Section 12 it has the power to call for information from service providers in the discharge of its regulatory, recommendatory and tariff setting functions, however, it does not have unlimited powers to call for any information from the service provider which is not directly related to its functions.
He further states that assuming but not admitting that the information requested by the appellant can be called by the TRAI, the information is huge and voluminous and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The appellant agreed to narrow his query and requested that only information relating to the number of landline calls and SMSs received for the question asked by Mr. Amitabh Bachhan from 15/08/2011 to 17/11/2011 (date wise and company wise along with call rate (charges) for landline telephone and mobile SMS may be furnished). (Query c & d) The CPIO further states that similar issue has been decided by the CIC on two earlier occasions viz. CIC/DS/C/2010/000332, dated 25/10/2010 and CIC/LS/A/2011/902758, dated 29/12/2011 directing TRAI to call for the requisite information from the service providers, however, the CIC's impugned orders have been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 11/05/2012 in WP(C) 2795/2012 and CM No. 6055/2012, based on TRAI's argument that collecting and collating of information is beyond the scope of the functions of the Authority. The CPIO produced a copy of the aforesaid High Court's order.
Decision notice:
It is seen that the Commission in its order dated 25/10/2010 (File No.CIC/DS/C/2010/000332) cited above by the respondent has held as under:
"6. Clause (a) of section 12 (1) is reproduced below:-
"(a) call upon any service provider at any time to furnish in writing such information or explanation relating to its affairs as the Authority may require"
Shri Abraham lays emphasis on the last 05 words of the above clause viz 'as the authority may require.' It is his interpretation that this expression means that TRAI can call for information only when it needs it for its own purposes and not for the purposes of supplying it to the information seeker under the provisions of the RTI act.
7. We are afraid, the construction put on clause (a) by Shri Abraham is not correct. According to us, the true meaning of the expression 'as the Authority may require' is 'as the authority may direct'. In other words, TRAI can call for such information from a private entity as it needs for its own purposes as also for the purpose of servicing the RTI Act."
As the abovementioned order of the Commission has been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and final judgment has not been passed in the case therefore the ratio of the Court Page 2 of 3 Judgment will apply to this case also once it has been decided by the Higher Courts. The Public Authority will, however, be obliged to inform this Commission by way of an application as soon as the judgments are delivered in these cases by the Superior Courts.
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.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 3 of 3