Central Information Commission
Smtharipriyapatel vs Department Of Telecommunications on 12 January, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/900281/6745
12 January 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Haripriya Patel
Telecom Colony, Qr. No. 04,
Chakadola Vihar, Near RCM,
CS Pur Area, Bhubaneswar - 751023
Respondent : CPIO & Director (PSI-1)
Department of Telecommunication
Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashok Road,
New Delhi
CPIO & Director (Coord)
Department of Telecommunication
Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashok Road,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 01/10/2013
PIO replied on : No Reply
First appeal filed on : 28/11/2013
First Appellate Authority order : 17/12/2013
Second Appeal dated : 19/01/2014
Information sought:-
The appellant has sought the following information:-
1. Whether Ministry of Communication & IT is aware that department of telecom (DOT) and PSUs(BSNL/MTNL/BBNL) under its control can request NHAI and state road constructing authorities to construct utility duct with minimal cost for laying of optical fibre cable preferably at the time of construction of road or afterward by NHAI and state road constructing authorities, which will prevent repetitive cable fault due to road expansion, theft etc and give more reliability & life to such cables with least maintenance expenditure in future. In this connection any communication/action plan made by Ministry of Communication & IT or telecom department and PSU under its control with NHAI and state road constructing authority may be provided.
2. Whether Ministry of Communication & IT is aware that lot of duplication of cable laying works and thereby wastage of public money could have been avoided by laying optical fibre cable by BSNL/MTNL/BBNL through co ordination with NHAI and road constructing authorities, so the cable can be laid through utility duct and repetitive relaying of cable due to road construction work by NHAI and other state road constructing authorities may be avoided. In this connection expenditure incurred for relaying the cable for road expansion may be provided for last ten years by Telecom department and PSU under its control.
3. Whether Ministry of Communication & IT is aware that many developed countries such as Japan, United States provided utility duct/knowledge duct along the roads and these ducts are constructed at the time of construction of respective roads to facilitate developments of Page 1 of 2 telecom and other accessories such as water pipe line etc.The information available with DOT in this connection may be provided.
4. Whether Ministry of Communication & IT is aware that the NHAI project envisages 5m wide utility corridor along the Highway on either side abutting boundary within the ROW for providing all utilities but no utility duct construction was carried out by NHAI, thereby causing unnecessary public money expenditure by forcing to do the same works by other Public utility service such as BSNL/MTNL/BBNL and others. Any correspondence made in this regards with NHAI and other state road constructing authorities may be provided.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, CPIO, Mr. Sanjeev Gupta & Mr. Trishna Mandal PIO The CPIO stated that from a plain reading of the appellant's RTI application it is apparent that she is seeking answers to questions/information of interrogatory nature but no such information is held by them. He informed that road digging/ducting are local operational issues for which the service provider has to obtain permissions from appropriate authorities and the DoT has no role in the matter.
He further stated that subsequently a committee has been constituted by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MORTH) on the issues raised by the appellant and in a separate RTI application she has sought the details of the Committee's meetings which are being supplied to her.
Decision notice:
It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act that is available and existing and is held by the public authority. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of the public authority. The PIO is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inference and/or making of assumptions; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
The CPIO has submitted that they do not hold any of the information sought by the appellant in her RTI application dated 01/10/2013. The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to canvass her case/contest the CPIO's submissions. In the above circumstances we are unable to provide any relief.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2