Central Information Commission
Vilas Laxmanrao Barapatre vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 27 June, 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/2023/646101
Shri Vilas Laxmanrao Barapatre ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.06.2024
Date of Decision : 25.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.04.2023
PIO replied on : 20.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 21.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 16.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 25.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Therefore, under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, kindly provide me a certified copy of any such communication served by BSNL to me informing me that I was instrumental in causing any pecuniary loss to the BSNL during my entire service with BSNL as provided in Rule 61(4)(1) of BSNL CDA Rules 2006."
The CPIO vide letter dated 20.05.2023 replied as under:-
"Certified copy of communications served by BSNL in respect of False/Fake caste certificate complaint are already provided along with Memorandum dated 18.03.2023."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 16.06.2023 stated as under:-
"3. After careful study of the case and documents on record, I find that communications/letters/circulars served by BSNL to appellant is mentioned in Annexure_III of Memorandum dated 18.03.2023 served to Appellant under rule-32(read with rule-61) of BSNL CDA Rule-2006 and it has been acknowledged by the appellant on dated 15.04.2023. Further public authority under RTI act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information. He has to provide information as is what is available with authority as per available records. The communication served by BSNL Page 1 of 2 to Appellant related to the said Memorandum is already disclosed to the appellant. In view of this, I find no cause to intervene in it."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Nitin Penshey - CPIO was present during hearing. The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent.
Respondent present during hearing stated that information held on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant seeks redressal of his grievance which does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in terms of provisions of the RTI Act has already been provided by the Respondent, no further intervention is warranted.
The 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 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)