Central Information Commission
Vilas Laxmanrao Barapatre vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 27 June, 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/BSNLD/A/2023/646102.
Shri Vilas Laxmanrao Barapatre ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.06.2024
Date of Decision : 25.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.04.2023
PIO replied on : 20.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 21.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 16.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 25.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1) A copy of letter no. OFROT/RAIGAD/212/2018 having put a date as 10 DEC 2018 by rubber stamp received by the BSNL after the date on which date, the purported letter was created.
2) A copy of a list, and more particularly the page wherein my name is appearing at serial no. 326 which was duly signed by the sender of the letter to which this list is enclosed."
The CPIO vide letter dated 20.05.2023 replied as under:-
"A copy of letter no. OFROT/RAIGAD/212/2018 dated 10.12.2008 is already provided along with Memorandum dated 18.03.2023 A copy of letter no. OFROT/RAIGAD/212/2018 dated 10.12.2008 and page appearing name "Vilas Laxmanrao Barapatre' at serial no 491 is already provided along with Memorandum dated 18.03.2023"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 16.06.2023 stated as under:-
"2. The appellant filed this appeal on the ground that information sought by him is not provided by CPIO and copy of list is not provided by CPIO, further copy of page Page 1 of 2 containing his name which was provided along with the memorandum does not contain sign of the sender. As per above observation, information asked by the appellant at point no-01 is Hypothetical. However CPIO provided the information held by him as per available office record and therefore, I find no cause to intervene in it. Also, the CPIO provided the extract of the list where name of appellant is appearing at Sr No 491. The list contains name of 1097 employees against whom complaint of false/fake caste certificate is reported and disciplinary proceeding is pending and not attains to its finality. After careful study of the case and documents on record, I find that it is not appropriate at this time to disclose the complete list and prevented under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act-2005. The page having sender signature i.e. last page of the list is provided and enclosed herewith"
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: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Nitin Penshey - CPIO was present during hearing. The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent.
Respondent present during hearing placed reliance on the PIO's reply and contended that information held 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, it is evident that information available on record with the public authority 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 seeks redressal of his grievance and resolution of his dispute with the Respondent, which cannot be entertained within the scope of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in terms of provisions of the RTI Act has already been provided by the Respondent, no further intervention is warranted.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)