Central Information Commission
Sorabh vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 4 August, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/901465
Appellant: Sorabh Sethi
9 Nav Manak Nagar, PO Manak Nagar, Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh-226011
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
Dy. GM BSNL, O/o Chief General Manager,
Operation Cell, UP East, Telecom Circle,
Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001.
Date of Hearing: 21.06.2017
Dated of Decision: 21.06.2017
ORDER
Facts:
Facts:
1. The Complainant filed on-line RTI application dated 'nil' seeking information on 5 points. He wants to know the time limit of resolving of customers complaints in all services of BSNL. What is the after-effect if the complaint is not resolved within the time limit and provisions of rent adjustment etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 21.03.2016. The complainant filed first appeal with First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 19.04.2016.The Complainant filed Complaint on 31.05.2016 before the Commission to take action against the respondent for not providing the information.
Hearing:
3. The complainant and the respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. On query from the Commission, the appellant stated that it is true that an identical matter has already been disposed of by this Commission vide 1 order No. CIC/BS/A/2016/900312 dated 24.05.2017. The appellant stated that the respondent has not transferred the RTI application within 5 days as per the direction of the Commission. The respondent further stated that no reply has been given by the CPIO, ITPC (to whom the RTI application was transferred).
5. The respondent stated that he has joined his post on 13.06.2017 and the RTI application was transferred on 14.06.2017. On query from the Commission, the respondent stated that that the said order was received on 06.06.2017. The respondent stated that he is not aware as to why his predecessor had not transferred the RTI application within 5 days. Discussion/ observation:
6. The respondent is admonished for lackadaisical approach in dealing with the RTI application as well as in compliance of the Commission's decision.
7. The matter may be adjourned for hearing the CPIO, ITPC ( to whom the RTI application was transferred) on his compliance. Decision:
8. The matter is adjourned. The Dy. Registrar is directed to relist the case for further hearing and to issue the notice of hearing to the CPIO, ITPC (to whom the RTI application was transferred) as well as the appellant.
Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
Sd/-
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy Sd/-
(S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar
1. CPIO, Dy. GM BSNL, O/o Chief General Manager, Operation Cell, UP East, Telecom Circle, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001.
22. CPIO, ITPC, through Dy. GM BSNL, O/o Chief General Manager, Operation Cell, UP East, Telecom Circle, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001 3 Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/901465 Adjunct order dated 01.08.2017 Facts:
1. The instant matter was earlier heard on 21.06.2017. Hearing:
2. The appellant and the respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
3. The appellant stated that he has received reply from the respondent.
However, he is not satisfied with the reply. The appellant stated that he has been provided incorrect information. The appellant stated that the respondent also had misled the Commission as during the earlier hearing they had stated that the information is not available with them and after the Commission's order they have provided the information. The appellant stated that he can prove that incorrect information has been provided and complaints of customer are 'closed' in back date to ensure that the respondent fulfils the TRAI time lines to redress the complaints. The appellant stated that he has been informed that customer complaint software is handled by a private agency and they do not have any supervision upon it.
4. The respondent stated that the information, as directed by the Commission, has been provided to the appellant. The respondent stated that their nodal office has supervision upon the private agency which handles the customer complaints. On query from the Commission, the respondent could not explain why this information was not provided earlier and the Commission was mis-informed that the information is available with CPIO ITPC. Discussion/ observation:
5. The Commission observed that the information about backdated closing of the customer complaint needs to be looked into by higher authorities, based on inputs to be given by the appellant.
4Decision:
6. The CPIO, who had given wrong information during hearing about need for reference to CPIO, ITPC shall show cause why action should not be taken against him for giving incorrect information. Further, a factual report shall be submitted by the circle office, Lucknow on the issue in para 5 to ascertain whether factually correct information was furnished.
7. CGM, BSNL, Lucknow is directed to ensure service of the show cause notice on the then CPIO as referred to in para 6. He shall also submit a factual report an enquiry as also referred to in para 6. Replies on both matters shall be submitted to the Commission in 30 days.
8. Deputy Registrar is directed to file a hearing after one month.
Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar 5