Central Information Commission
Mr.Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 28 January, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/000764/BS/1776
28 January 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal
1775 Kucha Lattushah,
Dariba, Chandni Chowk,
New Delhi-110006
Respondent : CPIO & Director (AS-IV)
Department of Telecommunications
Access Service Cell-IV
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001
RTI applications filed on : 26/09/2011
PIO replied on : 27/10/2011
First appeals filed on : 14/11/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 13/12/2011
Second Appeal received on : 29/12/2011
Information sought:
Please provide complete and detailed information on under-mentioned aspects together with related documents/correspondence/file-notings etc also relating to 'DoT's notice to telecom cos unlikely to affect consumers' and 'TRAI says cancel 69 licences, DoT agrees to only 8' (TOl 31.08.2011):
1. Is it true that DoT has agreed to cancel only 8 licences for failure of telecom operators to meet rollout obligations, against Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) recommendations for 69 such licenses to be cancelled as also referred in enclosed news- clipping?
2. If yes, provide complete and detailed information together with related documents/file notings/correspondence etc on cancelling 8 licences, and not cancelling 61 licences.
3. List of 69 companies whose licences were recommended to be cancelled by TRAI mentioning separately 31 cases recommended by TRAI for outright cancellation, and 31 cases recommended by TRAI for seriously to be considered for cancellation
4. List of 8 companies whose licences are agreed to be cancelled by TRAI mentioning separately names of those companies which were recommended by TRAI for outright cancellation and those which were recommended by TRAI for seriously to be considered for cancellation
5. List of 61 companies whose licences were recommended by TRAI to be cancelled but not agreed by DoT for such cancellation as recommended by TRAI.
6. Name of the final authority amongst TRAI and DoT' empowered to take final decision on cancellation of licences for failure of telecom operators to meet rollout obligations
7. Any other related information.Page 1 of 4
8. File-notings on movement of this RTI petition as well.Page 2 of 4
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has declined providing related and sought documents including also like copies of showcasue notices, file notings, correspondence etc as according to him additional show cause notices on similar subjects are in process of approval and that replies received from the licensees are under examination and as such disclosure of information may impede process of examination for being claimed exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h). I appeal that department of telecommunication may kindly be directed to provide all sought and related documents relating to my RTI petition but now free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. S.C. Agarwal M: 9810033711 Respondent: Mr. H. Chinzason APIO Tele: 23372655 The appellant stated that he has not been provided copies of showcause notices, file notings, correspondence, etc. requested in his RTI application dated 26/09/2011. The APIO stated that initially the information could not be furnished as the additional show cause notices on similar subjects were under approval and replies received from the licensees were under examination and any premature disclosure of information would have impeded the process, hence, exemption was claimed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He further stated that the entire records have since been referred to the JPC and as per Office Memorandum dated 30/11/2011 information/documents which are referred to JPC are to be treated as confidential till laying of JPC report in the Parliament and exempt under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. The appellant contested the APIO's contention stating that the information sought by him is not covered by the JPC proceedings. The APIO stated that the relevant records are not immediately available with him and he may be allowed time to make written submissions to clarify the position. The appellant agreed.
Interim Decision notice:
After hearing both the parties it is decided to grant adjournment to allow the CPIO to make written submissions on the points mentioned above by 11/02/2013. A copy of the submissions as aforesaid should also be forwarded to the appellant by the CPIO.
The hearing is adjourned for 25/02/2013 at 4.00 PM This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Page 3 of 4 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 4 of 4