Central Information Commission
Shamlal Gomaji Ninawey vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 31 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2023/617050
Shri Shamlal Gomaji Ninawey ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bhandara ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2024
Date of Decision : 29.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.12.2022
PIO replied on : 11.01.2023
First Appeal filed on : 01.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : 22.02.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 03.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"In regard to paragraph 6 of Article-1, under RTI Act 2005,
1. Kindly provide me a certified copy of my letter dated 06/10/2021, wherein I apprehended that submission of caste/tribe validity certificate as directed by the office is not applicable to me, as I do not recollect that I have submitted such a letter having wording as mentioned in paragraph 6.
2. Kindly provide me a certified copy of letter by AGM (Admin) Bhandara No. E- 1/Genl/Halba-K/Halbi-K/Koshti/GMT-BHV/2021-22/89 dated 11/11/2021 forwarding my representation to the DGM(HR), Circle Office, Mumbai,
3. Kindly provide me a certified photocopy of reply received from DGM(HR), Circle Office, Mumbai in response to letter by AGM (Admin) Bhandara No. E- 1/Genl/Halba-K/Halbi-K/Koshti/GMT-BHV/2021-22/89 dated 11/11/2021."
The CPIO and AGM (Admin/ Plg) BSNL Bhandara vide letter dated 11.01.2023 replied as under:-
"1. Information Pertaining to BA Head Chandrapur.
2. The Information is regretted under Section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act 2005
3. The Information is regretted under Section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act 2005"Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 22.02.2023 stated as under:-
"After careful study of the records kept before me and appeal preferred by the appellant, the Undersigned observed that the CPIO BSNL Bhandara vide his letter no. E-1/RTI-05/DGM(OP)-BHV/2022-23/247 Dated at Bhandara 11/01/2023 has given the RTI reply to the appellant. As per my opinion the reply is as given below.
(1) Reply:- This is your letter/representation, hence must be available with you.
(2) Reply:-This is official letter cannot be disclosed.
(3) Reply:- Reply not yet received from Circle Office Mumbai."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri P N Bansod, AGM The Appellant stated that satisfactory information was not provided to him, till date. He specifically referred to points 2 and 3 of his RTI application during the hearing wherein he was seeking information regarding documents which formed part of the official records.
Shri P N Bansod stated that the Appellant was seeking his own information in point no 1 which the PIO is not obliged to provide as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Regarding point 3 he reiterated the FAA order wherein it was mentioned that reply not yet received from Circle Office Mumbai. With regard to point 2 he agreed to provide a revised response to the Appellant, if so directed by the Commission.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case the Commission is of the view that appropriate response has been provided to the Appellant regarding point 1 of the RTI application as the Appellant is seeking certified copies of his own letter.
Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the decision dated 17.09.2014 in the case of The Public Information Officer, The Registrar (Administration),High Court, Madras vs. CIC & B. Bharathi, held as under:
" 24. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of Page 2 of 3 the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect..."
Similarly with regard to point 3 an appropriate response has been provided by the Respondent as only such information that is held and available in the records of a public authority can be provided.
Regarding point 2, the Commission finds that an incorrect response has been provided by the FAA stating that "This is official letter cannot be disclosed". The RTI Act, 2005 has been enacted with the intent of empowering the citizens to obtain official records permissible for disclosure as per the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, Shri P N Bansod, AGM is directed to re-examine point 2 of the RTI application and provide information permissible for disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) 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)