Central Information Commission
Nikku Philip vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 9 October, 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/2023/645023
Shri Nikku Philip ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Date of Hearing : 07.10.2024
Date of Decision : 07.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.03.2023
PIO replied on : 28.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 27.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 16.06.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 11.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1) "Please provide the details of the authorised officer of the area to whom the Licensee (PS Communication) need to be reporting as per the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
2) As per the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 Licensing Authority will maintain the records of their LCOs. Has BSNL Will maintain the records of PS Communication Kurichy?
3) Have you received an explanatory Notice/Letter from the Kottayam Collector regarding delay in providing the FTTH connectivity Application No.127283955187 & 127283963645 (0481-2991991) that a child's education is being hampered? If yes.
a) Please provide the copy the letter/mail received from the Collector.
b) Did you Inform the above complaint to your LCO?
c) Have you responded to the above complaint?
d) If yes. Please provide the copy of your replay Letter given to the Kottayam Collector
4) Have you received a Compliant (DOTEL/E/2021/23492, and DOTEL/E/ 2021/24096) from TRAI regarding delay in providing the FTTH connectivity of Page 1 0481 2991991 (Application No. 127283955187 & 127283963645) that a child's education is being hampered? If yes.
a) Please provide the copy of same.
b) Have you responded to the above complaint?
c) If yes. Please provide the copy of your replay Letter given to the TRAI
5) Kindly provide a copy of the instruction given by you to your LCO for checking the Feasibility for the FFTH Connection for Application No. 127283955187 & 127283963645
6) Kinley provide the copy of Feasibility report given by your LCO after checking the Feasibility for New FFTH Application (No: 127283955187 & 127283963645) 7) Do you send SMS to a person who has your FTTH connectivity on them with all the necessary instructions to configure and use their modem?
8) Is it the responsibility of the customer or your LCO to configure the required modem/ONT when taking a new FTTH internet connectivity from you?
9) If a person applies for New FTTH BB Connectivity from you, he will get connectivity only if he buys the modem/ONT Just pull the necessary cables?
10) And other related information."
The Dy. General Manager & CPIO vide letter dated 28.04.2023 replied as under:-
1. "Information sought is beyond the purview of BSNL
2. Information sought is beyond the purview of BSNL
3. No Letter/Notice as per the RTI application mentioned is available/received in this Office.
4. No such complaint as mentioned in the RTI application is received from TRAI
5. No such applications as mentioned are available in this Office (5 & 6)
6. Please refer reply to point no: 5
7. No such mechanism is available
8. Responsibility lies with LCO
9. The statement given does not deserve reply under RTI act/ No information is sought.
10. Etc."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 16.06.2023 stated as under:-
Appeal Statement of appellant. Observations/Decisions of the Sl. No. appellate authority
1. If the asked information is not CPIO has very clearly mentioned available in your office forward that the information sought is my application to the concerned beyond the purview of BSNL, public authority. which means BSNL is under no obligation to provide this Page 2 information under RTI Act-2005.
2. As your answer to RTI Question The reply given by CPIO is clear No.3 given by me to you is and complete without any incomplete. I request you to re- ambiguity.
examine it and give a clear and precise answer.
3. The appellant has referred to The original application talks CPGRAM Docket Nos about TRAI complaints and CPIO DOTEL/E/2001/23492, clearly mentioned that no such DOTEL/E/2001/24096 and complaint has been received. The expected that the answer to the appeal has to be in line with the Qn. No.4 of original application original RTI application No be provided with respect to additional further information can CPGRAM dockets. be sought through appeal.
4. Information provided is The referred application numbers misleading and requested to are not available with BSNL.
provide clear and precise Hence the reply given by CPIO is
answer. in order.
5. Information is incomplete and The refusal of CPIO to disclose the
requested information be third party information -to the
provided with reference to the applicant is in line with the
authority letter No. PC- exemptions provided in the RTI
0117/1/11/2021 Dated Act-2005. There is no
30/12/2021. validity/sanctity to such authority letters (like the one attached with the appeal). And, third party information can no way be disclosed on the basis of such letters.
6. The provided information is The reply provided by CPIO is in incomplete and requested to re- order. examine it and to give a clear and precise answer.
7. The provided information is The refusal of CPIO to disclose the incomplete and requested to re- third party information to the examine it and to give a clear applicant is in line with the and precise answer. exemptions provided in the RTI Act-2005. There is no validity/sanctity to such authority letters (like the one attached with the appeal). And, third party information can no way be Page 3 disclosed on the basis of such letters.
8. The provided information is The reply provided by CPIO is in misleading and requested to re- order. All information/status examine it and to give a clear about the complaints/dockets and precise answer, booked on online portals can be viewed by the complainants through the portal. Such information which is available on the portal need not be sought provided through RTI platform.
And, disclosure of such information to any third party or to the general public is exempted.
9. Etc In view of the lengthy questionnaires both in the original RTI application and appeal, the appellant is also advised to note the following points:
i) RTI Act-2005 provides for seeking only such information which is available on records, and which qualifies to be "information" as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act. There is no provision for asking explanations, clarifications or opinions etc..
ii) CPIO is under no obligation to create or interpret information.
iii) CPIO is also not supposed to furnish replies to hypothetical questions."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present over the Call Respondent: Shri Ramachandran , DGM & CPIO The CPIO submitted that the appellant has made an application dated 28.03.2023 under RTI Act 2005 seeking queries/clarifications about the FTTH connection No: 0481 2991991. This FTTH connection was provided to Sri. Philip P.P, Koodathinkal house, Kurichy, who is the father of the appellant"
CPIO and the FAA replied to the lengthy questionnaires submitted by the appellant as per the information available regarding the subject. It was further submitted that a written submission dated 10.10.2024 has also been uploaded on the link provided by the Commission.
Decision:
The Commission directs the CPIO to send a copy of the written submission dated 10.10.2024 to the Appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO is further directed to send a compliance report of this order within 01 week thereafter.
Page 4 Keeping in the view of the case and the submissions made by the CPIO , the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the CPIO no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. Hence, with the above observation, the second appeal stands disposed off.
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 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)