Central Information Commission
Raghav T vs Department Of Telecommunications on 31 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DOTEL/A/2019/638623
In the matter of:
Raghav
... Appellant
VS
1.Central Public Information Officer
Director General (Telecom) Hq
20, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi- 110001
&
2. Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Telecommunication,
Office of the Advisor APLSA,
IV Floor, CTO Building Near Paradise
Secunderabad - 500 003
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 06/03/2019 CPIO replied on : 29/03/2019 First appeal filed on : 05/04/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 18/04/2019 Second Appeal dated : 18/04/2019 Date of Hearing : 31/12/2020 Date of Decision : 31/12/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Y. Srinivas Rao, Director (Admn) and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in regard to the latest guidelines with respect to the call data recording (CDR):1
1. Whether the CDR data is accessible to the common man for his/her phone number.
2. Provide the requisite procedure to procure CDR data from the telecom providers.
3. Provide the information in regard to the cost to get such CDR data.
4. Provide the copy of TRAI order and Acts which mention about the handling of the customer data by the Telecom Operators.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO provided incorrect and misleading information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as contradictory replies were given by the same public authority in two separate RTI applications. Thus, the CPIO may be penalized for giving misleading information to him. On a query the appellant submitted that he received the letter dated 04.12.2020 of the CPIO but he is aggrieved as it took about two years to provide proper information, which could have been done much earlier.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 04.12.2020. He further submitted that in the two queries, one was regarding individuals and another was a general query and accordingly it was replied to so there is no contradiction as such.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved as according to him contradictory replies were given to him by the same public authority while seeking the same information through separate RTI applications. According to him, in one of the replies, the CPIO had stated that Field units of DOT are not having any CDR records for Individuals as such the information is not readily available in the office hence can't be supplied under RTI and in another RTI application it was stated that the CDR is accessed by the Designated persons of the Central/State Government as conveyed from time to time in addition to the Licensor or its nominee. However, it is noted that the CPIO in his written submissions had explained in detail as to why two different replies were given. It was clearly stated that the information sought by the appellant in the present RTI application was with respect to a common man and this information is readily available in the TRAI website in the form of Customer Handbook which is already in public domain and therefore an appropriate reply was given by the CPIO providing the web-link of TRAI website containing Consumer Handbook on Telecommunication. He had 2 further stated that through the other RTI application referred to by the appellant, he had sought information about the authorities who can have access to CDRs of any subscriber. He summed up submitting that access to CDRs for designated officials is totally different from the provisions of CDRs for the common man. There is no lapse or contradiction in both the replies so given.
The Commission finds the submissions of the CPIO proper and detailed wherein every point raised by the appellant in his second appeal memo has been adequately answered. Therefore, the appellant also is satisfied with the reply.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO dated 04.12.2020 and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter. However, it is noted that a timely reply is the essence of the RTI Act and therefore, the Commission expresses extreme displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO in providing a delayed reply. The CPIO is issued a strict warning to be careful in future with regard to the above observations including the unnecessary delay in replying to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3