Central Information Commission
Vilas Laxmanrao Barapatre vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 27 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2023/646104
Shri Vilas Laxmanrao Barapatre ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.06.2024
Date of Decision : 25.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.04.2023
PIO replied on : 17.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Order on : 30.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 25.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2023 seeking information on the following point:-
"1. A certified copy of Roster Register prepared on the date of my appointment in the department which is maintained in terms of Paragraph of Chapter 12 of Brochure on reservation on SC and ST published by Government of India in terms of MHA O.M. No: 31/10/63-SCT (1) dated 27-03-1963 and 02-05- 1963, DP & AR O.M. No: 36011/46/81. Estt (SCT) dated 04-02-1982, DP & AR OM No: 36011/12/82 Estt(SCT)2 dated 25-06-1982."
The CPIO vide letter dated 17.05.2023 replied as under:-
"Not available at Bhandra SSA."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 30.06.2023 held as under:-
"After careful study of the records kept before me and appeal preferred by the appellant, the Undersigned observed that the CPIO BSNL Bhandara vide his letter no. E-1/RTI-05/DGM-BHV/2022-23/279 Dated at Bhandara 17/05/2023 has replied as per available information to the appellant."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 1 of 2Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Nitin Penshey - CPIO was present during hearing. The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent.
Respondent present during hearing stated that information held on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant seeks redressal of his grievance which does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in terms of provisions of the RTI Act has already been provided by the Respondent, no further intervention is warranted.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)