Central Information Commission
Mr.Ram Kumar Gupta vs Mtnl on 27 May, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000838/2583
27 May 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ram Kumar Gupta
Y-12, Green Park (Main)
New Delhi- 110016
Respondent : CPIO & GM(E)
MTNL
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
J.L.N. Marg, New Delhi-110002
RTI application filed on : 02/03/2012
PIO replied on : 02/04/2012
First appeal filed on : 16/04/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 15/05/2012
Second Appeal received on : 21/06/2012
Information sought:
The appellant had sought following information regarding telephone no. 23250008 installed at property bearing no.2534A, Tiraha Behram Khan, Darya Ganj, New Delhi in the name of Sri javed Abbas:
1- Please give details of the Possession Letter received by you for the installation of the above telephone number.
2- Kindly tell the issuing person's name and the date of issuing of the possession letter. 3- Has the owner of the above mentioned property issued the possession letter given to you by Javed Abbas (subscriber).
4- Kindly give a photocopy of the same possession letter.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not given satisfactory information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta appellant's representative Respondent: Mr. Anil Gupta CPIO's representative M: 9013130330 The appellant's representative stated that there was an illegal occupant in his property who got an MTNL landline telephone installed but no consent has been given by him and hence, he wants a copy of the possession letter based on which the said connection was provided. The CPIO's representative stated that the information relates to a third party and they had carried out the process as laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the subscriber has declined to give Page 1 of 2 his consent and hence, exemption was claimed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He further stated that the connection has been closed on 09/11/2005. The appellant's representative argued that the possession letter is issued by the landlord/owner but he had not issued any such letter, hence, the document provided by the illegal occupant was forged and accordingly there is larger public interest to justify the disclosure of information. The CPIO's representative stated that he will scrutinize the possession letter and if any forgery is established he will provide a copy of the document to the appellant.
Decision notice:
As stated by the CPIO's representative he should scrutinize the possession letter provided by the erstwhile subscriber and if any forgery is established a copy of the same should furnished to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. If, however, no forgery is established the appellant should be informed accordingly.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Page 2 of 2