Delhi High Court - Orders
Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs Jitendra Pratap Singh & Ors on 29 January, 2024
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12495/2021 & CM APPL. 39351/2021
TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Sood and Mr. Varun
Agarwal, Advocates.
versus
JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Respondent No.1 in-person.
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Mr. Dhruv
Kothari and Ms. Aditi Singh,
Advocates for R-2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 29.01.2024
1. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the Order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Second Appeal No. CIC/TRAOI/A/2019/640625 titled as "Jitendra Pratap Singh vs. CPIO, TRAI".
2. The Respondent No.1 herein had sought the following information under the RTI Act with respect to his Vodaphone Mobile Nos. 9099030707 and 9819692683:
"i. Name of the agencies, who have taken CDR of above stated mobile nos. during the period 01.01.2014 to 01.12.2018.
ii. Date on which CDRs were provided and period of W.P.(C) 12495/2021 Page 1 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/02/2024 at 20:32:06 data given to such agency.
iii. Name of agencies, which had put the said mobile nos. for surveillance along with period of such surveillance."
3. The aforesaid information was not provided either by the CPIO of the Petitioner or by the Appellate Authority. The Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a second appeal before the Ld. Central Information Commission (CIC) and the Ld. CIC by its Order dated 22.12.2020 allowed the second appeal and observed as under:
"Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to approach the custodian of the information directly and seek assistance from them u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act in reference with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India vs. Kabir Shankar Bose W.P.(C) No. 12388/2018 where the same information was provided to the appellant and whatever reply is given by them, the same should be supplied to the appellant. The CPIO should also note that in the absence of any express stay order from the Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A No. 721 of 2018, the above mentioned judgment dated 20.11.2018 is still operative. He is also directed to find out whether any reply was given to the appellant by DoT after the RTI application was forwarded to them. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 20 days after the receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission."
4. A perusal of the aforesaid decision reveals that the Order of the Ld. CIC is based on the Judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 12388/2018 in the matter of "Telecom W.P.(C) 12495/2021 Page 2 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/02/2024 at 20:32:06 Regulatory Authority of India v. Kabir Shankar Bose". The Ld. CIC also observed that the said Judgment dated 20.11.2018 was challenged and is a subject matter of LPA No.721/2018 before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner informs this Court that the Judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 12388/2018 in the matter of "Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Kabir Shankar Bose" has been overruled and set aside by a Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in LPA No.721/2018. The relevant portion of the said Judgment dated 22.12.2023 reads as under:
"42. In terms of Section 12 of the TRAI Act, the authority can call for any information and conduct investigations relating to the affairs, if it considers it expedient to do so. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hotel Sea Gull v. State of West Bengal And Others : (2002) 4 SCC 1 interpreted the expression "expedient" and held that the word "expedient" would comprise whatever is suitable and appropriate for any reason for the accomplishment of the specified object.
43. To hold that asking for information in relation to interception or tracking or tapping of a phone would be within the power of TRAI under Section 12 of the TRAI Act, would not be in conformity with the functions specified in Section 11 of the TRAI Act. Any contrary view would give the authority unbridled power to call for information and interfere with the functions of telecom service providers, and also would not be in consonance with the objects sought to be achieved by the TRAI Act. As referred to above, the authority was established for the purpose of regulating telecom services to protect the interest of service providers and consumers in the telecom sector, and to W.P.(C) 12495/2021 Page 3 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/02/2024 at 20:32:07 promote and ensure orderly growth of the sector.
44. Another aspect as rightly pointed out by Mr. Lekhi, learned senior counsel, which cannot be lost sight of is that any information in relation to interception or tapping or tracking of a phone as ordered by the concerned Government under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, may attract the exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(a) and Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act read as under:
"Section 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;"
45. Any order passed by the concerned Government in relation to interception or tapping or tracking of a phone is passed when the authorized officer is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. Such order, therefore, by its very nature may have been passed in the process of investigation. In a given case, the disclosure of any such information, therefore, may impede the process of investigation, and may be construed to prejudicially W.P.(C) 12495/2021 Page 4 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/02/2024 at 20:32:07 affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, the strategic, scientific, and economic interest of the State, relations with the foreign states or lead to incitement of an offence, and would therefore be exempted from disclosure under terms of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
46. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(C) 12388 of 2018 is set aside."
6. Since the Judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 12388/2018 in the matter of "Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Kabir Shankar Bose", has been overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.721/2018, the basis on which the impugned order dated 22.12.2020 was passed no longer subsists. The present writ petition is, therefore, consequently allowed and the Order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Ld. CIC is set aside.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JANUARY 29, 2024 S. Zakir W.P.(C) 12495/2021 Page 5 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/02/2024 at 20:32:07