Central Information Commission
Prashant M Patil vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ... on 28 July, 2020
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/MTNLT/A/2020/119238
In the matter of:
Prashant M Patil
... Appellant
VS
CPIO / GM(Finance),
MTNL, 14th Floor, Telephone House V. S. Marg,
Prabhadevi, Dadar(West), Mumbai - 400 028
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 31/05/2018 CPIO replied on : 19/06/2018 First appeal filed on : 08/08/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 05/09/2018 Second Appeal dated : 03/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 27/07/2020 Date of Decision : 27/07/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Shri Narendra Dhaktode, GM(Fin) & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the list of officers of MTNL, Mumbai HBA section containing their name, designation and staff number who have dishonoured instructions issued by Government of India under HBA Rules and involved in recovery of huge amount from borrowers.
2. Provide the action taken against such officers as stated above.1
3. Provide the copy of note sheet approval and details of officers who were responsible in making recovery from the appellant by dishonouring instructions of Government of India issued under HRA rules.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has denied providing 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 as the desired information was not provided to him. The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 19.06.2018. Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO was not proper on any of the points that were raised in the RTI application except for point no.4. With regard to points (a), (b) & (c), the CPIO in his reply had merely stated' NIL' without explaining what this 'NIL' means. On a query to the CPIO to explain this, he submitted that none of the officers working in their organisation have dishonoured the instructions issued by Government of India under HBA Rules and hence no such information is available. The Commission notes that since this reply was not given to the appellant, therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide a categorical reply to the appellant on these points as per the submissions made by him during the hearing.
With regard to points (e) & (f), the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is totally irrelevant as the appellant is seeking information about his own recovery case and not about any other third party. During the hearing, the CPIO explained that the file which has been mentioned by the appellant contains information about some third parties as well and hence, the information was denied to the appellant. It is brought to the notice of the CPIO that even if the file contains information about third parties, only that part of the information was to be supplied to the appellant that pertains to the appellant and the rest of the information could have been severed u/s 10 of 2 the RTI Act. Hence, the CPIO is directed to provide such information to the appellant that is related to him only.
On point (f), the CPIO should give a categorical reply regarding the Rule under which follow up document reminder to fiIe number 3155 was sent.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a categorical reply to the appellant on points no. (a), (b), (c) & (f) as per the discussions held during the hearing. On point (e), complete information which is related to the appellant only should be provided to him. However, the information on this point shall be provided after applying the due procedure as envisaged u/s 10 of the RTI Act, thereby masking the names, designations and addresses etc of all the concerned third parties mentioned in the said documents. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 20 days from the date of issue of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु 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 3