Central Information Commission
Shri Rohit Sabharwal vs Bsnl, Patiala on 13 August, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/000870
Dated August 13, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri Rohit Sabharwal
Name of the Public Authority : BSNL, Patiala
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.14.3.09 with the CPIO, BSNL, Patiala.
He stated that it was brought to the notice of BSNL, Patiala that it has not met the compliance of minimum wages act such as EPF (during one year) during the execution of such work where as per instructions issued by Jt. DDG(CA) BSNL, CO, New Delhi dated 8.11.04, it is clearly stated that while passing bills of the contractors the authorities have to check whether the EPF has been deposited by contractors and to submit copies along with bills. In this connection, he requested for information against 9 points with regard to the housekeeping work being carried out in Patiala Secondary Switching Area (SSA). The CPIO, O/0 GMT, BSNL, Patiala replied on 31.3.09 furnishing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.15.4.09 with the Appellate Authority giving point comments against the replies furnished and reiterating his request for the information. He also suggested that the DGM (Admn) cum CPIO take a crash course on RTI Act, 2005 to be clear about the basic tenets of the Act. The Appellate Authority vide his Order dated 12.5.09 rejected the appeal and made a note of the 'undesirable' remarks passed by the Appellant against the CPIO. He stated that the Appellant has framed questions of his choice and that with reference to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the nature of questioning is interrogative and does not come under the ambit of the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as information sought does not exist in material form. However, they were still replied to by the CPIO. Aggrieved with the decision, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.6.6.09 before CIC. In his appeal he stated that he is possession of certain bills which show that work was done by an agency and payment was made. The CPIO's reply that names of employees and their addresses are not available since no tender had materialized, is incorrect. He also stated that reply to point 5 is incorrect since the bill he possesses clearly show that payments have been made by the Planning branch and that information has been deliberately withheld.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 13, 2009.
3. Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta, DGM(A) cum CPIO, Mr.Musaddi Lal, GMTD cum Appellate Authority, Mr.Mahavir Singh, DE(Plg.) and Mr.Amrik Singh Matta, AO(CA) represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was represented by Mr.Saurabh Gupta during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Applicant submitted that the Appellate Authority did not call the Appellant for a hearing before passing the Order and that had the Appellant been allowed to make a submission before the Appellate Authority, the issues could have been sorted out at that stage itself. He also stated that he has no grievance with regard to replies furnished against points 1,2,6,7,8 and 9 and requested for information/clarification with regard to points 4 and 5.
6. The Respondent submitted that efforts were made to float a tender for the 60 sub divisions . However the tender process did not materialize, and hence in around 10 subdivisions, including Patiala they had to depend on agencies who sent their labour on a call basis to complete a piece of work. No contract was drawn up with any of the agencies which provided the manpower as and when it was required, and payments were made to the labourers through the agency as per the wage rates drawn up by the Deputy Commissioner. Since there was no contract drawn up with any of the agencies, and since different labourers were sent by agencies at different times, the BSNL Patiala does not have a list of employees supplied by the agencies and their addresses. He added that for the rest of the subdivisions tenders were floated. According to the Respondent, the annexed bill exhibited by the Appellant at the hearing was one such payment made to an agency which was requested to provide labour for BSNL without having drawn up a contract and therefore, the answers furnished by the CPIO against points 4 and 5 were correct. The Appellant, while accepting this submission from the Respondent, complained about the wrong procedures being followed by BSNL Patiala.
7. In a written submission to the Commission dated 27.7.0 the CPIO also stated that the point no. 4 does not constitute a specific query and was bereft of material particulars of information and that the Appellant had failed to specify the agency whose employee details he was seeking. He also vehemently denied that wrong information had been furnished to the Appellant against point no. 5 since even in this point the Appellant had not sought the name of the agencies about whom he is seeking information.
8. The Commission while noting that available information has been furnished to the Appellant advises the Appellant to seek redressal of his grievances with regard to wrong procedures being followed, in an appropriate forum. It is also the contention of the Commission that even if the information is not available in material form, the Appellant has a right to be informed that it is not available and that the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the RTI application on the pretext that the questions are interrogative in nature and therefore, do not come under the ambit of the RTI Act, is a result of his wrong interpretation of the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority is also advised to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his arguments at a hearing attended by both the parties, before issuing an Order so that issues can get sorted out at the first appeal stage itself.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) pInformation Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Asst. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Rohit Sabharwal Kundan Bhawan 126 Model Gram Ludhiana Punjab
2. The CPIO & DGM (A) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited O/o General Manager Telecom District Patiala 147 001
3. Shri Musaddi Lal The Appellate Authority & General Manager Telecom Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited O/o General Manager Telecom District Patiala 147 001
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC