Central Information Commission
Mrkrishan Lal Bareja vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 27 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002093/8461
27 August 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Krishan Lal Bareja,
S/o - Late Shri Ram Das
R/o H no. 802/3, Panipat,
Haal Niwasi, H No. - 42, Kaptan Nagar,
Panipat
Respondent : CPIO & Dy. General Manager (CFA -
BSNL
O/o General Manager Telecom,
Dist - Karnal
RTI application filed on : 29/05/2014
PIO replied on : 09/06/2014
First appeal filed on : 17/07/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 21/08/2014
Second Appeal dated : 16/09/2014
Information sought:
The appellant wants to inspect the file prepared during the allotment of landline telephone number 0180-2656385.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Ashok Trivedi CPIO's representative through TC M: 09416600501 The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing but he is absent. The CPIO's representative stated that the appellant in his RTI application dated 29/05/2014 has sought inspection of a file relating to a subscriber of a landline telephone but the records cannot be shown to him as the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He submitted that the information relates to third party, is personal in nature and no public purpose is involved.
Decision notice:
BSNL is bound to protect the confidentiality of its subscribers and information relating to telephone connection of any subscriber cannot be disclosed to third parties being exempt under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.Page 1 of 2
The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission and demonstrate that the disclosure of the information asked for by him is in larger public interest. It being so, there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2