Central Information Commission
Neelesh Gajanan Marathe vs Mtnl on 28 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या /Second Appeal No.- CIC/MTNLT/A/2018/111183
Neelesh Gajanan Marathe ...अपीलकता /Appellant
Versus
बनाम
Central Public Information Officer, ... ितवादी/Respondent
GM (CC), MS Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,
O/O. General Manager(CC) Ms, 4th Floor,
BKC Tele. Exch Bldg., Kurla (W) Mumbai-400098.
Dated of Hearing:- 27-09-2018
Dated of Decision:- 27-09-2018
RTI Application filed on:- 04-11-2017
CPIO replied on:- 28-11-2017
First Appeal filed on:- 05-01-2018
FAA's order:- No Record.
2nd Appeal received on:- 19-02-2018
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 04-11-2017 seeking miscellaneous information regarding interception of his mobile number 9969360949.
2. The appellant filed second appeal on 19-02-2018 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him. Hearing:
3. Both the parties participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
Mr. K. L. Tayde (GM) represented the respondent. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should provide him confirmation whether his phone no. 9969360949 is being illegally tapped/intercepted.
5. The respondent stated that the lawful interception/phone tapping is done by the Law Enforcement Agencies, duly authorized by the central/state governments under the classified legal regime in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relation with foreign states or public order or to prevent the incitement of offence as per the provisions contained in Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 r/w Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
6. Further, the respondent stated that documents/information relating to lawful interception are classified as 'Top Secret' and cannot be disclosed as they are exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. He confirmed that no illegal interception was done on the appellant's phone.
Discussion/ observation:
7. The action/steps taken by the respondent dealing with the RTI application is satisfactory.
Decision:
8. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
Radha Krishna Mathur (राधा कृ ण माथुर) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S.C. Sharma Dy. Registrar एस. सी. शमा , उप-पंजीयक एस. सी.
(011-26186535)