Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

T Chandrasekaran vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 31 December, 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/BSNLD/A/2019/126733
In the matter of:
T Chandrasekaran
                                                             ... Appellant
                                      VS
CPIO / PGM(HR/A),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited(BSNL),
O/o The PGM, Chennai Telephones,
No. 78, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai - 600010.
                                                             ...Respondent
RTI application filed on          :   14/01/2019
CPIO replied on                   :   26/02/2019
First appeal filed on             :   11/03/2019

First Appellate Authority order : 16/04/2019 Second Appeal dated : 03/06/2019 Date of Hearing : 30/12/2020 Date of Decision : 30/12/2020 The following were present:

Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Shri V S Ilanthirai, GM(HR/Admn.) and PIO, present over phone Information Sought:

The appellant was using the BSNL Cellonehaving No. 9443739153. He made a compliant regarding non-functioning of SIM since 03/01/2019. Meanwhile, the duplicate SIM for the above stated number was issued to a subscriber in Chennai. In this context, the appellant has sought the following information:
1
- Provide the details of documents submitted for issuing theSIMto a subscriberat Chennai. Name of the person to whom the SIM was issued. Also provide the details of usage of the SIM with log report.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO declined to furnish the information by quoting Sec 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he was a holder of the post-paid mobile number for a decade in Coimbatore. He argued that it is against the rule to issue duplicate SIM in Chennai to another person. He requested that documents submitted and procedure followed for obtaining the duplicate SIM provided should be provided to him. He further submitted that he is personally affected by the wrongful act of the PGM, Coimbatore and it is his right to have access to the documents based on which the SIM which was earlier in his name was issued to some other person.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 26.02.2019.He further submitted thatan investigation is pending and therefore no information can be given ; moreover, this is third party information and stands duly exempt under the RTI Act. However, on being asked , he informed that the documents given for obtaining the duplicate SIM was a copy of the driving license and a photograph Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant through his RTI application had sought details of documents submitted for issuing the SIM to a subscriber at Chennai alongwith his name and log details. The CPIO in his reply had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act while stating that an investigation is pending with the Cyber Crime Cell, Coimbatore. The Commission noted that even if the SIM with mobile no. 9443739153 was used by the appellant at some point of time, however, later on the same no. was allotted to some other person and any information about that person including his name, call log etc qualifies to be personal information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the issue regarding the alleged fraud raised by the appellant as to how a duplicate SIM was issued to a person other than 2 him without his knowledge and authorization is something which does not come under the domain of the Commission and the appellant can be provided limited relief by informing him the details of the name of the documents submitted by the individual while obtaining a duplicate SIM.
Decision:
The CPIO is accordingly directed to provide a revised reply as discussed and intimated during the hearing on the documents submitted for obtaining the duplicate SIM in this case ,within 5 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3