Lakshminarayan K vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 19 June, 2025

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Lakshminarayan K vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 19 June, 2025

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/2024/112507

Shri Lakshminarayan K                                           ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited                          ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                         :    17.06.2025
Date of Decision                        :    17.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner          :    Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :          10.08.2023
PIO replied on                    :          23.12.2023
First Appeal filed on             :          06.12.2023
First Appellate Order on          :          05.01.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :          15.04.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.08.2023 seeking information regarding IPDR data for mobile no. 9886183292 for the period 2022- 2023 (up to date).

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2023.

The CPIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bengaluru vide letter dated 23.12.2023 replied as under:- "Xx As per the Standard Operating Procedure given for Lawful Interception Unit, only CDRs are to be shared also IPDR contains IP addresses which is security information & are to be shared only to authorized LEAS (Law Enforcement Agencies)."

In regard to his first appeal, the FAA vide order dated 05.01.2024 stated as under:-

2. "I have carefully examined the application, the responses and the appeal with documents annexed therein and found that the matter can be decided on merits based on the material available on record.

3. Vide his queries of RTI Application; the appellant had sought for the IPDR details of Mobile No.9886183292 for the period 2022 to 2023.

Page 1 of 3

4. Since applicant's address belongs to Karnataka Circle, verification of customer identity from Kerala Circle may not be practical. Hence the application was forwarded to Karnataka Circle vide letter dated 26.09.2023. It is observed that, in response to the letter from CPIO, O/o CGMT, Karnataka Circle dated 26.10.2023, Kerala Circle has supplied all available details to CPIO, O/o CGMT, Karnataka for further processing of the RTI Application.

5. It is also observed that, CPIO, O/o CGMT, Karnataka Circle, has furnished reply to the appellant vide letter dated 23.12.2023.(Copy attached).

6. Since the above RTI Application was replied by CPIO, O/o CGMT, Karnataka, the FAA, O/o CGMT, Kerala Circle is not the Appellate authority to process this appeal.

7. Hence the appellant is requested to file appeal, if not satisfied with the reply of CPIO, KTK circle, to the respective appellate authority address, mentioned in the reply letter dated 23.12.2023.

8. This appeal is disposed off accordingly."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 09.06.2025 has been received from the CPIO-BSNL, CGM, Circle Office, Bangalore reiterating the above facts. A letter dated 09.06.2025 has also been sent to the Appellant, enclosing IPDR in respect of his own mobile number for the period from September 2022 to August 2023 in soft copy, in a CD.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: None present during the hearing.

The Appellant admitted receipt of the CD with the IPDR data he sought, recently by post from the Respondent and has submitted a written note dated 10.06.2025 acknowledging the receipt.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the case, it is noted that the response has been provided to the Appellant, in consonance with the spirit of the RTI Act.

Considering the Respondent's unexplained absence during hearing and failure to make submissions about the case at hand, leading to the proceedings being vitiated in clear violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, the Respondent- CPIO O/o CGM(T), BSNL, Bangalore, Karnataka - Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal is hereby directed to submit an explanation for wilful violation of the provisions of the RTI Act by his unexplained absence during hearing. The explanation should positively reach the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated, in terms of law.

Page 2 of 3

It is made clear that in the event of non compliance of either of the abovementioned direction, the Commission shall be constrained to initiate penal action, on the basis of records of the case.

The appeal is disposed off on the above terms.

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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission