Sita Ram Aggarwal vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 August, 2022

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sita Ram Aggarwal vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 August, 2022

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/2021/108680

In the matter of
Sita Ram Aggarwal
                                                                 ... Appellant
                                       VS
CPIO
BSNL, Office of GM,
Telecom Dist Ajmer,
Ajmer, Rajasthan -305001
                                                                 ... Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   08/10/2020
CPIO replied on                   :   31/10/2020
First appeal filed on             :   01/12/2020

First Appellate Authority order : 18/12/2020 Second Appeal filed on : 03/02/2021 Date of Hearing : 01/08/2022 Date of Decision : 01/08/2022 The following were present:

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Girish Shrimali, DGM and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The Appellant has sought the following information with reference to mobile connection No. 7597636055:

1. Provide the date of activation of the above said number.

2. Provide the documents submitted for the activation of the above said number.

3. Provide date of issue of duplicate SIM for the said phone along with a copy of the application form submitted for the same.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. The CPIO reiterated the reply dated 31.10.2020. He also submitted that available information was given to the appellant.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 31.10.2020 replied to the appellant and provided information on points no.

(i)(iii)(vi) and (vii). In respect of point (ii) it was replied that record being not available and damaged by water cannot be given. In respect of points no. (iv) and (v) the CPIO replied that copies of the complaint and note-sheet cannot be given as the same is not traceable being old. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed a first appeal. The FAA vide order dated 18.12.2020 disposed of the first appeal and held that the reply dated 31.10.2020 was sent on time but the appellant had not received it. Moreover, as the despatch detail is missing or lost the same cannot be substantiated. He directed the CPIO to resend the same. The Commission took serious note of the CPIO and the FAA's plea of records being damaged by water, not traceable being old and above all despatch details not more than one month old being lost. It appears that the officers and the staff are very casual in maintenance of records and there is no digitisation facility implemented yet.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the respondents are cautioned to be careful regarding the maintenance of records. However, the appellant cannot be given any relief due to unavailability of the documents.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.





                                           Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
                                   Information Commissioner (सच
                                                              ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत          त)


A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
 दनांक / Date




                                      3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission