Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Prasanta Basu Ray vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 26 July, 2017

                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                     2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
                       Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
                                 Tel : +91-11-26186535

                              Complaint No. CIC/BSNLD/C/2016/292160

Complainant:            Mr. Prasanta Basu Ray
                        Deziray Complex, Barabazar,
                        Chandannagar,
                        Distt. Hooghly-712136

Respondent:              Central Public Information Officer,
                         DGM (NW & OP), BSNL,
                         Calcutta Telephones,
                         96, Dey Street
                         Serampore
                         Hooghly-712201

Date of Hearing:        25.07.2017

Dated of Decision:      25.07.2017

                        ORDER

Facts:

1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 05-05-2016 seeking information on 4 points viz. whether BSNL or the SDEs bore the expenditure of the litigation to defend the complaint in District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum/Hooghly from September 2013 to 5th August 2015; how much expenditure has been incurred by BSNL; details of expenditure that was incurred by BSNL in each and every proceeding at DCDRF/Hooghly etc.

2. The response of CPIO is not on record. The first appeal of complainant is not on record. The response of FAA is not on record. The complainant filed complaint on 12.07.2016 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.

Hearing:

3. The complainant participated in the hearing through VC. The respondent Sh. Vaziruddin, DGM participated in the hearing through VC.

4. The complainant referred to his RTI application dated 05.05.2016 and stated that information has not been provided to him by the respondent.

5. The complainant stated that information should be provided to him and penalty should be imposed on the respondent for not providing the information.

6. The respondent stated that he had recently joined the post at Serampore.

He stated that he needed some time to give reply to the complainant on his RTI application dated 05.05.2016.

Discussion/ observation:

7. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent had not furnished reply/information to the complainant on his RTI application dated 05.05.2016 till date. There is a delay of more than 1 year in furnishing information.

8. This may appropriately be treated as second appeal.

Decision:

9. The respondent is directed to: (a.) give reply/information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 05.05.2016; (b.) indicate the names and designations including present place of posting and addresses of CPIO(s) who held charge during the period that delay occurred; (c.) the then CPIO(s) are directed to give the reasons for delay in sending the reply; and (d.) show cause why penalties as prescribed should not be imposed on the CPIO(s).

The reply should be furnished within 15 days from the date of this order. The GM, BSNL, Distt. Serampore, Hooghly is directed to serve this order on all the then CPIOs and ensure their presence with all relevant records at the time of video conferencing.

10. The Deputy Registrar is directed to fix a re-hearing in the matter after 30 days for compliance.

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.

(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar Copy to:

GM, BSNL, Calcutta Telephones, 96, Dey Street Serampore Hooghly-712201 3