Central Information Commission
Kailash Chandra Panda vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 23 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2023/128648.
Shri Kailash Chandra Panda. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.
Date of Hearing : 18.12.2024
Date of Decision : 18.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.02.2023
PIO replied on : 02.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 02.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 30.03.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 17.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.02.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"01. Kindly provide the active prepaid mobile customers in BSNL Kerala Circle as per the following format. As on Date Total 31.10.2022 30.11.2022 31.12.2022 31.01.2022
02.Kindly provide the prepaid SIM swap made in BSNL Kerala Circle as per the following format. Month Total October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023
03. Kindly provide the total number of active prepaid mobile numbers working in BSNL Kerala Circle without data entry as on 31.01.2023. If no such case a nil report may be provided.
04. Kindly provide the list of employees who have completed more than 20 years at a particular station in Kerala Telecom Circle as on till date as per the following format. If no such case a nil report may be provided.
05. Kindly provide the total number of Aadhaar Enrolment Kit (AEK) available in Kerala Circle and the total number of AEK functional as on 31.01.2023."
The CPIO, Sr. GM (HR/Admin), Kerala Circle, BSNL vide letter dated 02.03.2023 replied as under:-
Page 1 "1.2.8.3. The information sought for involves commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of BSNL, in terms of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and hence cannot be disclosed.
4. The information sought for is not readily available in a compiled format. Hence collection and compilation of the data would definitely divert the resources of BSNL and attract Section 7(9) of the Act.
Accordingly CPIO cannot oblige the applicant by devoting the resources to meet the demand for collection of information.
5. 161."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2023. The FAA, Chief General Manager, Kerala Circle, BSNL vide order dated 30.03.2023 stated as under:-
"4. It is observed that the information sought for against Qn. Nos.1,
2. & 3. of RTI application, could affect the business of the company in a competitive environment. Being a telecom service provider operating in a competitive market, disclosure of these information related to the operational strategy of BSNL, would harm the competitive position of BSNL. In the present competitive scenario these information are of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property in terms of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005. Also I have not found any valid reasons to assume that the information sought for is of any public activity or public interest.
5. Vide Qn.No.4 the appellant had sought for the list of " employees who have completed more than 20 years at a particular station in Kerala Telecom Circle as on till date" in a given format. The respondent had given the reply that the information sought for is not readily available in a compiled format and hence cannot be supplied.
6. It is seen that, such a data as requested by the appellant is not maintained in this office. Collection and compilation of data would 'disproportionately' divert the resources of BSNL under Section 7 (9), of RTI ACT. As per various decisions of Hon'ble CIC as well as the Apex court which governed the field it is reiterated that RTI Act 2005 provides, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. Also the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or compile such non-available information.
7. Vide Qn.No.5 the appellant had sought for the "total number of Aadhaar Enrolment Kit (AEK) available in Kerala Circle and the total number of AEK functional as on 31.01.2023". The respondent had given the reply as "161". Against this response the appellant is alleging that "The CPIO should clearly mention whether 161 number of AEK functional or 161 number of AEK available in BSNL Kerala Circle." 8. In this regard it is submitted that out of 161 AEK available in Kerala circle, all are functional.
9. On the basis of above points, I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the respondent."
Page 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 10.12.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
It is submitted that the appellant has made an application dated 01.02.2024 under RTI Act 2005. This office vide letter dated 02.03.2023 had responded to the appellant. It may kindly be noted that the appellant raised this second appeal on the contention that he had not received any information against Point numbers 1, 2, 3 & 4.
It is submitted that Vide Point No.1 of his RTI Application, the appellant had sought for the total active prepaid mobile customers of BSNL Kerala Circle as on 31.10.2022, 30.11.2022, 31.12.2022 and 31.01.2023. Vide Point No.2 of his RTI Application, the appellant had sought for the total prepaid SIM swap made in BSNL Kerala Circle as on October 2022, November 2022, December 2022 and January2023. Vide Point No.3 of his RTI Application, the appellant had sought for the active prepaid mobile numbers working in BSNL Kerala Circle without data entry as on 31.01.2023. Against Point Nos.1, 2 & 3, this office had given the reply that the information sought for cannot be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005.
Being a telecom service provider operating in a competitive market, disclosure of these information related to the operational strategy of BSNL, would harm the competitive position of BSNL. In the present competitive scenario these information are of the nature commercial confidence. Supplying such information to third party could affect the business of the company in a competitive environment.
It may be noted that against Point No.4 the appellant had sought for the list of "employees who have completed more than 20 years at a particular station in Kerala Telecom Circle as on till date" in a given format. This office had given the reply that the information sought for is not readily available in a compiled format and hence cannot be supplied.
In this regard it is hereby humbly submitted that such a data as requested by the appellant is not maintained in this office. In BSNL Kerala Circle 11 Business Areas are there, and in each Business Area, there exists more than 100 stations. Station wise stay particulars in the given format, as sought for by the applicant is not maintained in this office. Only Circle wise and BA Wise stay details are periodically compiled and maintained in this office for the purpose of Transfer and Posting. Collection and compilation of data from various Business Area/Units would 'disproportionately' divert the resources of BSNL under Section 7 (9), of RTI ACT. As per various decisions of Hon'ble CIC as well as the Apex court which governed the field it is reiterated that RTI Act 2005 provides, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided.
Page 3 Also the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or compile such non available information. It is submitted that none of the grounds submitted in the appeal is sustainable and moreover, no larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information was justified by the appellant.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: R. Sathesh Sr. GM(HR), Kerala- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Appellant remained absent. It was come to the notice of the Commission that the hearing notice sent to the Appellant has been received back 'undelivered' with the postal remarks "addressee left without instructions''. The Commission has sent the notice on the address given in the Second Appeal and no other contact details are available in the file. However, in the Second Appeal he had stated that the requisite information has not been furnished to him by the concerned PIO.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the "the information sought by the Appellant is not readily available in a compiled format and hence cannot be supplied as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. He further stated that the Appellant is ex-employee of BSNL and has filed numerous RTI Applications, some of which are identical in nature and thereby clogged the system with barrage of RTI Applications.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing the averments of the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. The hearing notice sent to the Appellant has been received back at the Commission with the remark "Addressee left without instruction" and no other contact details of the Appellant are found on record. The Appellant has not updated the Commission about change of address and hence the matter is decided on the basis of available records.
Considering the fact that appropriate response has already been sent by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the Act.
Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)