Central Information Commission
Mrs.Sujal Nitin Pradhan vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 13 March, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/BS/A/2012/000111/2050
13 March 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mrs. Sujal Nitin Pradhan
20 Sahawas, Kashinath Dhuru Road,
Dadar, Mumbai- 400028
Respondent 1- CPIO & Director (PG)
Department of Telecommunication
1207, PG Cell, Sanchar Bhawan,
New Delhi
.
2- CPIO & Director -I (TERM)
Department of Telecommunication
O/o Dy. Director General (TERM)
05th Floor, Saki Vihar Telephone Exhg Bldg.
Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East),
Mumbai-400072
RTI application filed on : 17/08/2011
PIO replied on : 06/09/2011 & 13/10/2011
First appeal filed on : 05/11/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 10/01/2012
Second Appeal received on : 22/02/2012
Information sought:
(3.1)Subject matter of information: The applicant has registered two complaints against Vodafone Essar Ltd (Vodafone) with DoT. DoT registration nos. of these complaints are DOTEL/E/2011/009288 dated 16/8/11, DOTEL/P/2010/00684 dated 15/09110. (3.2)The period to which the Information relates: From January 01, 2000 to the date of reply.
(3.3) Description of the information required:
(3.3.1) Please provide photocopy of docket action history of complaint no. DOTEI/P/20 10/00664. (3.3.2) Please inform reasons of deactivation of my number 9820886196 from 16/8/11. (3.3.3) Please provide photocopy of DoT documents addressed to Vodafone in support of the reasons you have stated in (3.3.2).
(3.3.4) Please provide photocopy of DoT documents having any reference to the documents provided in (3.3.3).
(3.3.5) Please inform the full name, designation and office address of the person from DoT who has authorized deactivation of my number 9820886196.
(3.3.6)Please inform the full name, designation and office address of the person from Vodafone who has authorized deactivation of my number 9820886196.Page 1 of 4
(3.3.7) Please provide photocopy of all records of communication between DoT and Vodafone including docket action history regarding my complaint no. DOTEL/E/2011/09288 (3.3.8) Please inform reasons as to why a vigilance Inquiry should not be conducted based on the two complaints stated in (3.1) above and all records associated with these two complaints including RTI applications referring to these complaints and respective replies of DoT.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not given satisfactory information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mrs. Sujal Nitin Pradhan through VC Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Porwal CPIO DoT Mumbai, Mr. R.K. Singh CPIO (PG) & Mr. Pradeep Kumar CPIO (S-I) DoT Delhi.
The CPIO stated that all information as available on record with the public authority and those which have been accessed from the service provider has been furnished to the appellant from time to time in response to her RTI application dated 17/08/2011. The appellant accepted that most of the information/documents have been received but pointed out that the source was not the CPIO and pleaded that penalty should be levied on him for late/incomplete submission of information. She explained that certain document(s) were received by her from the grievance redressal cell/other departments of DoT, some information was provided after a delay of 57 days and in piecemeal. The CPIO clarified that much of the information had to be obtained from the service provider which resulted in delay and submission of part information from time to time.
The appellant stated that there is a material discrepancy regarding the correct date on which her RTI application was transferred to the Director (Term). She pointed out that the CPIO (Mr.Pradeep Kumar) vide his reply dated 24/11/2011 intimated that the application was transferred on 08/09/2011 whereas the FAA vide his order dated 07/01/2012 informed that the application was transferred on 20/09/2011. She further pointed out that during the intervening period she had no idea how/where her RTI application was being processed. She also stated that the CPIO took 14 days to transfer her application which should have been done immediately as per DoPT instructions.
Decision notice:
The Commission directs the CPIO DoT Mumbai to provide the information, as available on record, requested by the appellant in her RTI application dated 17/08/2011 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
As regard the appellant's plea for imposition of penalty it will be apt to quote the law propounded by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 3114/2007, decided on 03/12/2007 (Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs). Para 17 of the aforesaid decision is extracted below:
"This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack adequate reasoning in the orders of the public information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act cannot be issued."Page 2 of 4
Following the ratio of the above decision we do not find this as a fit case for initiation of penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act against the CPIO, DoT, Mumbai as no malafide has been demonstrated against him.
As regards providing of erroneous information/delay in transfer of the appellant's RTI application the concerned CPIO Mr. Pradeep Kumar should offer his written explanation as aforesaid to the Commission before 31/03/2013.
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.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4