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 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 14 December, 2022

Author: Vanaja N Sarna

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                           क य सुचना आयोग
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                           Baba Gangnath Marg
                       मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
                       Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                      File no.: - CIC/BSNLD/A/2021/154459
In the matter of
Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel
                                                              ... Appellant
                                      VS
Central Public Information Officer
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
O/o PGMTD, Sanchar Bhawan,
Pilaji Ganj, Mehsana, Gujarat - 384 001
                                                              ...Respondent
RTI application filed on          :   28/06/2021
CPIO replied on                   :   23/07/2021
First appeal filed on             :   05/08/2021

First Appellate Authority order : 01/09/2021 Second Appeal dated : 13/12/2021 Date of Hearing : 14/12/2022 Date of Decision : 14/12/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Singh AGM (Admn)/APIO, Authorized Representative of CPIO- present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide a copy of the permission letter issued by the Nandasan Gram Panchayat for construction of BSNL tower in common plot area of Survey No.108/1, Village Nandasan.
2. Provide details of the parties who have signed the contract entered into for the construction of the said tower.
3. Provide details of person to whom rent for the said tower has been paid since beginning.
4. And other related information.
1

Grounds for filing Second Appeal:

The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that a proper reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act has not been furnished to him. He contended that the CPIO has withheld material information and requested the Commission to take action against the CPIO. He contended that the information pertains to him and not to any third party, hence the information should be supplied to him. A written submission dated 07.12.2022 has been received from the appellant reiterating the contents of RTI Application and taken on the record of the Commission.
The CPIO submitted that a point-wise response along with supporting documents was provided to the appellant. He apprised the Commission that a part of the information sought was held by another public authority, Gram Panchayat, therefore could not be provided. He added that the appellant also sought personal information relating to a third party which could not be provided. Since the appellant claimed that he is not seeking third party information, but information where he is a joint owner of the land, the CPIO submitted that the appellant had not submitted any documentary evidence to support his claim of having a share in the disputed land, hence, the information being third party could not be provided. Written submissions have been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 08.12.2022 and taken on the record of the Commission.
Observations:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and hearing the submissions of both the parties, the Commission observed that the disclosable information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the CPIO. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant has any interest in the disputed land, therefore, in the absence of any supporting document, the Commission is not inclined to allow disclosure of third party information. The Commission is in agreement with the contention of the CPIO that the information sought is third party information which in the absence of any public interest cannot be disclosed as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. From a perusal of the case records, it is evident that the appellant has failed to show involvement of any larger public interest in seeking the information. Therefore, the information has been rightly denied by the CPIO.
2
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission finds no legal infirmity with the reply of the CPIO. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.
The appeal, therefore, stands disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3