Central Information Commission
Mr.Triloke Kumar Bose vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 2 January, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File Nos.CIC/LS/A/2011/000125/BS/1572
January 2, 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Triloke Kumar Bose
Prop. M/s Jobdoers
2/34, Ashoke Nagar,
Kolkata-700040
Respondent : CPIO & GM (HQ)
BSNL
O/o The Chief Postmaster General Manager
Telecom Projects- East Zone,
2/85A, Judges Court Road,
Kolkata-700027
RTI application filed on : 30/12/2009
PIO replied : 26/02/2010
First appeal filed on : 31/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 01/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 07/10/2010
Information sought:
The appellant who is a recognized contractor for BSNL has been allotted a contract of Erection of Towers and due to some problem the department has not made the complete payment and some deductions have been made in the payment and hence he filed the RTI application seeking following information:
a) Under which clause of agreement a 10% deduction was made and the same has been forfeited.
b) While the Dept and in-charge was fully aware of the fact that the entire material and proper supply was not available at the site on the date of the work order nor for the next 13 months. Why was I conveyed the opposite vide DET's letter no. MW (P)/RI/Tower/02-03 dt. 20th July 2002?
c) Under what rule the DET is empowered to call a contractor to start work in spite of having prior knowledge of shortage of material at site and procuring the shortages, that too partly, after a lapse of a whole year, and cause financial losses in the shape of idle labour.
d) Was M/s Hindustan Engineering, Patna awarded the contract for all the 5 sites namely, Ratu, Chandwa, Latehar, Manika & Katmu under Ranchi-Daltonganj 6 GHZ Microwave Route or Part thereof.
e) If M/s Hindustan Engineering Patna was awarded the full contract, what were the circumstances under which he was allowed to leave the site after completing only three sites, namely Ratu, Chandwa & Latehar?Page 1 of 3
f) Was M/s Hindustan, Patna subjected to any punishment for having left two sites unattended?
g) Under what circumstances the DET had taken 7 months time for according a financial sanction.
h) Under which rule a contractor can be "Show Caused" without having procured the material required for the job.
i) Was not the NIT no. MW (P)/RI/Tender/04-05 dt. 03/12/2004 for Transportation of Microwave Stores, pertained to the Ranchi-Daltonganj 6 GHZ Microwave Route in question.
j) Under what motive and constraints, instead of conceding to our request for opting out, the DET instead of providing the materials by 15/07/2004 issued a show cause noticed on 14/09/2004.
k) After signing-up and visiting the site I came to know that the area was infested with extremists and law and order problems. This was not an ordinary hazard like all the installations at remote places, but a thorough political problem with which the entire Govt.
machinery is still grappling. Did, BSNL being a Govt. of India undertaking, had any arrangement for extra protection to the men & property of the contractor being considered or adopted, if yes why was I not specifically apprised of the same? Could the Deptt. had not taken straight cut steps like inform all security agencies, especially the local police force and arrange for round the clock security personnel, irrespective of the clause 19 of the agreement.
l) Did it not amount to throwing all the burden of fending against the hazard of the national dimension prevailing at the site on the contractor, and washing off its hands by the Deptt. Under the pretext of clause 19 of the agreement, without acknowledging the enormity of the risk at the location of work to be carried out.
m) Since we feel very much wronged against, in order to appeal for reconsideration of forfeiture of SE, whom should we approach.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not given complete satisfactory information on all the points.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Triloke Kumar Bose through VC (M: 9674152216) Respondent: Mr. N H Dutta CPIO's representative through VC (M: 9432000912) The appellant stated that he has not been provided correct and complete information in response to his RTI application dated 30/12/2009. The CPIO's representative stated that certain queries of the appellant are interrogatory in nature and not covered by the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He, however, admitted that some information provided vide letter dated 26/02/2010 may not be based on the available records and added that he is willing to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records and take whatever information/document(s) he needs. The appellant stated that he is agreeable to inspect the records; however, specific time and date may be fixed.
Decision Notice:
The CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish the information/documents as available on record, however, opinions, analysis, examination of issue, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules are outside the purview of the Act.
The Commission directs the CPIO to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application dated 30/12/2009 after fixing a mutually convenient time and date Page 2 of 3 with him within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant should also be permitted to take photocopies/extracts there from, duly attested by the CPIO, free of cost, 50 pages.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 3 of 3