Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Munish Bindra vs Department Of Telecommunications on 9 October, 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/DOTEL/A/2023/646159

Shri Munish Bindra                                           ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Department of Telecommunications                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                       :   07.10.2024
Date of Decision                      :   07.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner        :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :        23.05.2023
PIO replied on                    :        20.06.2023
First Appeal filed on             :        03.08.2023
First Appellate Order on          :        30.08.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :        24.09.2023

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

1. "What is the sample size of the CAF auditing every month in respect of Telecom Operators?

2. For the period from Jan 2018 to Dec' 2022- How many number of CAFs have failed to meet the criteria and hence are treated to be non-compliant with the norms?

3. What is the penalty amount that has been imposed on Telecom Operators towards the non-compliant CAFS

4. Has Telecom operators filed any Complaints/FIRs in respect of all the non- compliant CAFs reported in the above said period?

5. Has the copy of the FIRS/Complaint been submitted to the concerned TERM Cell of DoT

6. Have proper FIRS been filed, or mere police complaints / DDR have been filed

7. Kindly share a copy of all the FIRs/Complaints along with showing Stamps of the concerned Police Station/ Police authorities."

The CPIO & Director, Department of Telecommunications, Panchkula vide letter dated 20.06.2023 replied as under:-

"On receipt of your appeal, the case was taken up with concerned unit and the information sought in your appeal is as given below:-

1.0.1% of the Customer Database of Telecom Service Provider is audited every month.

2. The information is not maintained in the year-wise format. Cumulative 126002 CAFs have been found non-compliant up to December 22.

3. The Cumulative penalty amount imposed on TSPs for non-compliant cases up to December 22 is 21,96,97,000/-.

4. No such document/record is available in this office that can provide reply to your query.

5. No.

6. Not applicable in view of reply at sr no. 5 above.

7. No such record is maintained by this office."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2023 against point no. 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the RTI application. The FAA vide order dated 30.08.2023 stated as under:-

1. DoT has not issued any instructions/guidelines regarding filing of Complaints/FIRs in respect of all the non-compliant CAFs found in regular CAF audit except when mobile connection has been obtained using forged documents.

2. ΝΑ

3. ΝΑ

4. ΝΑ 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: Not present Respondent: Shri Karan Goyal - CPIO was present during hearing. Respondent present during hearing stated that information available 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 appropriate information 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 has chosen not to buttress the case at hand. In the given circumstances, since appropriate response in terms of provisions of the RTI Act has already been provided by the Respondent, hence no further intervention is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 2 of 3 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)