Central Information Commission
Mr.Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 15 March, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/000764/BS/1776-Adjunct
15 March 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal
1775 Kucha Lattushah,
Dariba, Chandni Chowk,
New Delhi-110006
Respondent : CPIO & Director (AS-IV)
Department of Telecommunications
Access Service Cell-IV
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001
RTI applications filed on : 26/09/2011
PIO replied on : 27/10/2011
First appeals filed on : 14/11/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 13/12/2011
Second Appeal received on : 29/12/2011
Information sought:
Please provide complete and detailed information on under-mentioned aspects together with related documents/correspondence/file-notings etc also relating to 'DoT's notice to telecom cos unlikely to affect consumers' and 'TRAI says cancel 69 licenses, DoT agrees to only 8' (TOl 31.08.2011):
1. Is it true that DoT has agreed to cancel only 8 licenses for failure of telecom operators to meet rollout obligations, against Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) recommendations for 69 such licenses to be cancelled as also referred in enclosed news- clipping?
2. If yes, provide complete and detailed information together with related documents/file notings/correspondence etc on cancelling 8 licenses, and not cancelling 61 licenses.
3. List of 69 companies whose licenses were recommended to be cancelled by TRAI mentioning separately 31 cases recommended by TRAI for outright cancellation, and 31 cases recommended by TRAI for seriously to be considered for cancellation
4. List of 8 companies whose licenses are agreed to be cancelled by TRAI mentioning separately names of those companies which were recommended by TRAI for outright cancellation and those which were recommended by TRAI for seriously to be considered for cancellation
5. List of 61 companies whose licenses were recommended by TRAI to be cancelled but not agreed by DoT for such cancellation as recommended by TRAI.
6. Name of the final authority amongst TRAI and DoT' empowered to take final decision on cancellation of licenses for failure of telecom operators to meet rollout obligations Page 1 of 5
7. Any other related information.
8. File-notings on movement of this RTI petition as well.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has declined providing related and sought documents including also like copies of show cause notices, file notings, correspondence etc as according to him additional show cause notices on similar subjects are in process of approval and that replies received from the licensees are under examination and as such disclosure of information may impede process of examination for being claimed exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h). I appeal that department of telecommunication may kindly be directed to provide all sought and related documents relating to my RTI petition but now free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 28/01/2013:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. S.C. Agrawal (M: 9810033711) Respondent: Mr. H. Chinzason APIO Tele: 23372655 "The appellant stated that he has not been provided copies of show cause notices, file notings, correspondence, etc. requested in his RTI application dated 26/09/2011. The APIO stated that initially the information could not be furnished as the additional show cause notices on similar subjects were under approval and replies received from the licensees were under examination and any premature disclosure of information would have impeded the process, hence, exemption was claimed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He further stated that the entire records have since been referred to the JPC and as per Office Memorandum dated 30/11/2011 information/documents which are referred to JPC are to be treated as confidential till laying of JPC report in the Parliament and exempt under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. The appellant contested the APIO's contention stating that the information sought by him is not covered by the JPC proceedings. The APIO stated that the relevant records are not immediately available with him and he may be allowed time to make written submissions to clarify the position. The appellant agreed."
Interim Decision notice dated 28/01/2013:
"After hearing both the parties it is decided to grant adjournment to allow the CPIO to make written submissions on the points mentioned above by 11/02/2013. A copy of the submissions as aforesaid should also be forwarded to the appellant by the CPIO.
The hearing is adjourned for 25/02/2013 at 4.00 PM"
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 25/02/2013:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. S.C. Agrawal (M: 9810033711) Respondent: Mr. H. Chinzason through TC Tele: 23372655 The CPIO vide his written submissions dated 12/02/2013 has stated as under:
"The copies of the show cause notices, file notings leading up to the decision for the issuance of such show cause notices and any additional correspondence that has occurred with any of the UAS Licensees who have such show cause notices over and above the show cause notice and its reply was not given as the additional show cause notices on similar subjects were in process of approval and reply received from the licensees were under examination and the said information was also provided to JPC, examining the Page 2 of 5 matter relating to allocation and pricing of Telecom licenses and spectrum vide letter No. 842-1196-AS-IV dated 19.07.2011 and inputs of Access Service Wing in respect of 23 points forwarded to DDG(C&A) vide letter No.20-303/2011-AS-I dated 20.07.2011. As such the information was denied under Section 8(l)(h) of RTI Act, 2005. Subsequently, an order No. 9-1112011-RTI dated 30.11.2011 has also been passed regarding clarification in respect of RTI application concerning JPC on 2G spectrum issue(copy enclosed). In the said order it has been mentioned that it has been clarified by the Lok Sabha Sectt. that proceedings of Parliamentary Committee are Governed by the Rules of Procedure and Directions of the Speaker. Under Rule 275(2) evidence report and proceeding of the Committee are treated as confidential and no part of the evidence, oral or written report or proceedings of the Committee which has not been laid on the Table shall be open to inspection by anyone except under the authority of the Speaker. As such there is no obligation to provide such information till the report of the Committee is laid on the Table and the same can be denied under Section 8(1)( c) of RTI Act, 2005."
The appellant states that the respondents have enclosed their own office memorandum dated 30/11/2011 instead copy of the communication/clarification received from Lok Sabha Sectt. mentioned in para 2 of the aforesaid memorandum. He further claims that the information/documents sought in query 2 of his RTI application do not relate to the allotment of 2G spectrum where Section 8(1)(c) is attracted. He argues that even from the written submissions of the respondent it is difficult to make out whether the relevant records relating to all the 69 companies are actually covered by the JPC and hence access should be permitted to those documents/file notings etc., which are outside the JPC proceedings. He also submits that the long drawn JPC proceedings may hamper access to information under control of public authorities which impedes transparency and accountability in their working.
The respondents are not present for making their submissions.
Interim Decision dated 25/02/2013:
The Commission directs the CPIO to furnish, free of cost, copy of the communication/clarification(s) received from the Lok Sabha Sectt. to the appellant along with the relevant documents/file notings etc. sought under query 02 which do not relate to any matter covered by the JPC/PAC proceedings within 15 days from the date of receipt of this interim order.
As the CPIO is not present, it is decided to grant adjournment to allow him to make his further written submissions on the appellant's contentions as aforesaid. A copy of the submissions should also be forwarded to the appellant by the CPIO.
The hearing adjourned for 15/03/2013 at 04.30 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 15/03/2013:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. S.C. Agrawal (M: 9810033711) Respondent: Mr. Sunil Singh and Mr. H. Chinzason through TC Tele: 23372655 The respondent vide their written submissions dated 11/03/2013 have stated that the roll out obligation wherein TRAI recommended for cancellation of 69 licenses, were processed in file No. 842-320/2005-AS-IV (Vol.V) (Pt.2) which is under the ambit of JPC, examining the matter related to allocation and pricing of telecom licenses and spectrum. A copy of Lok Sabha Sectt. OM No. 1/1/JPC (TLS) 2011, dated 22/11/2011 has also been produced. The respondent emphatically Page 3 of 5 argued that Sec 8(1)(C) of the RTI Act is clearly attracted and the information sought is exempt from disclosure.
Decision Notice:
It is clear from the forgoing that the relevant records are before the JPC and hence, the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. Having already held that the information is exempted as aforesaid we do not deem it necessary to form an opinion at this juncture on the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
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 Page 4 of 5 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 5 of 5