Central Information Commission
Chandrika Prasad vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 24 August, 2021
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
File no.: - CIC/BSNLD/A/2019/141622
In the matter of:
Chandrika Prasad
... Appellant
VS
CPIO / DGM(Admin),
Office of GM Telecom
Jamshedpur Telecom District
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Golmuri,
Jamshedpur - 831003
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/03/2019 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 12/07/2019 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal Filed on : 27/08/2019 Date of Hearing : 23/08/2021 Date of Decision : 23/08/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Dashrath Mahto, DGM & CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide details of the LTC case of Mr. Ashok Mandal and action taken report in the case.
2. Provide name of officials who are not taking necessary action in the case.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant contested the reply of the CPIO stating that the third party had retired from service.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 12.08.2021 submitted that a suitable reply was given to the appellant vide letter dated 23.07.2019 in which it was informed that the asked for information is related to third party and in the absence of larger public interest , information is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Further, it was informed that the RTI application with prescribed fee was not received in their office.
Furthermore, the CPIO pointed out that the appellant had asked for information relating to a third party, and on search of the records, it was found that no such employee works in their organisation.
Observations:
The Commission observed that the CPIO erred in claiming Sec 8(1)(j) exemption, without examining the records. In case no such person was in the organisation, the same should have been informed at that time to avoid unnecessary delay. The reply after the first appeal is however, justified due to non receipt of the RTI application.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 2 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 3