Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Navin Pandey vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 22 March, 2011

             CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
              Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


                               File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/001381

                 Appellant:                       Navin Pandey
     Respondent: MTNL
                 Date of hearing:                 22.3.2011
                 Date of decision:                22.3.2011

FACTS

The matter is heard today dated 22.3.2011. Appellant is not present but is represented by Shri Ankur Mittal. Shri Mittal request for adjournment. His request, however, is turned down. MTNL is represented by Shri B. K. Gupta, DGM (HQ) (WS) and Shri I. J. Bhardwaj, CAO. The parties are heard.

2. The matter, in short, is that the MTNL had launched two schemes viz GSM (Dolphin) and CDMA (Garuda) about 10 to 12 years back. A huge amount remained outstanding against the subscribers of these two schemes. According to Shri Bhardwaj, the outstandings could be in the region of about 100 crores since the inception of these schemes. It is his say that all possible efforts are being made to recover the outstandings as per standard rules and procedure.

3. Vide RTI application of November 2009, the appellant had sought information on 08 paras regarding fraud/serious irregularities committed by post-paid customers during the period January 2009 to September 2009 and the matters related therewith. Vide letter dated 16.1.2010, the CPIO had refused to disclose any information under clause (h) and (d) of section 8 (1). The Appellate Authority vide letter dated 26.3.2010, had affirmed the CPIO's order.

4. During the hearing, Shri Gupta and Shri Bhardwaj submit that action is being taken as per rules to recover the outstandings of these schemes which, according to them, is 'investigation' as defined in clause (h) of section 8 (1). Hence, they justify non-disclosure of information.

5. We do not agree with the view taken by the CPIO and AA. Recovery procedure adopted by the MTNL cannot be said to be 'investigation' in terms of clause (h) of section 8 (1). In our opinion, the information has been wrongly denied to the appellant.

6. In the premises, the orders of CPIO and AA are set aside and the CPIO is hereby directed to supply para-wise information to the appellant. Identity of customers with outstandings of Rs. 5 lakh or more may also be disclosed to the appellant.

7. This order may be complied with in 06 weeks time.

Sd/-

(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.

(K.L. Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-

1. The General Manager (O&C) WS & CPIO MTNL, O/o the GM (O&C) WS, 3rd Floor, Mahanagar Door Sanchar Sadan, 9, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Shri Navin Pandey Flat No. 107, Express Garden, Block No. 4, Vaibhav Khand, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh