Central Information Commission
Mohit Kumar Gupta vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India on 11 June, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/TRAOI/A/2018/636182/00856
File no.: CIC/TRAOI/A/2018/636182
In the matter of:
Mohit Kumar Gupta
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 002
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 13/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 24/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 29/08/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 26/09/2018 Second Appeal dated : 28/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 10/06/2019 Date of Decision : 10/06/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present alongwith Mr. Narvinder Thakran, Advocate. Respondent: Shri S K Dutta, Joint Adviser &PIO .
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1 Certified copies of file notings, orders, Minutes of meetings, action taken Reports, correspondences and communications made (till the date of reply of the RTI application) by offices of TRAI regarding an email sent by the appellant 1 regarding conversion of SMS beyond 160 characters into MMS to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and CC: [email protected] dated 13 August, 2018.
2. Provide the rules and regulations applicable for SMS and MMS services by the telecom companies respectively.
3. Provide the maximum character limits for SMS and MMS respectively.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and particularly by the order passed by the First Appellate Authority who decided the matter on his own without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to him when he had specially requested for the same. He further stated the FAA himself while providing a reply to the RTI Applications has himself taken over the role of the CPIO as he is not the custodian of the information. He also prayed that the matter may be placed before a link Appellate Authority for the reason that the present appellate Authority will be biased to pass any other order on the same subject matter in which he has a predetermined mind set.
Observations:
During the hearing, among other submissions, the Appellant specifically wanted the Commission to take note of the fact that the Appellate Authority had not given him any opportunity of hearing even after he expressly requested for the same. The FAA should note that deciding an appeal after rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and is in line with the principles of natural justice. As per Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, the FAA is required to dispose of an appeal within 30 days of the receipt thereof and as far as possible also give the appellant as well as third party an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of the RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra, stated, Civil Appeal No.9095/2012 has made the following observation:2
File no.: CIC/TRAOI/A/2018/636182 Thus, the principle is clear and settled that right of hearing, even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded. It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to vest the person with consequences of civil nature.
The below-mentioned passage of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. AIR 2009 SC 2375 exhaustively explains the term natural justice which is reproduced below for ready reference: "6. Natural justice is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted Writ Petition No.6427/2017 considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009 issued by the DoPT while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
5..............................The Act provides that the first appellate authority would be an officer senior in rank to the CPIO. Thus, the appellate authority, as per provisions of the Act, would be an officer in a commanding position vis a vis' the CPIO. Nevertheless, if, in any case, the CPIO does not implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take against the 3 CPIO. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the RTI Act. "
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and without going into the merits of the case, the Commission remands the case to the FAA to examine the matter afresh, after hearing both the parties and pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appellant is at liberty to approach the Commission by way of a fresh Second Appeal with regard to the above mentioned RTI application in case such need arises.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4