Central Information Commission
Mohit Kumar Gupta vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India on 31 August, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/TRAOI/C/2018/636181
In the matter of:
Mohit Kumar Gupta
... Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Old Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 13/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 23/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 29/08/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 26/09/2018 Complaint filed on : 28/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 27/08/2020 Date of Decision : 31/08/2020 The following were present:
Complainant: Not present (Requested to decide as per written submissions) Respondent: Shri S.K Datta, Joint Advisor and CPIO, present over VC Shri Manmohan Vyas, Deputy Advisor; present over VC Information Sought:
The Complainant in his complaint has stated that no information has been provided on Point No.2,3,4 and 6 of the RTI application. The said points are given below:
2. Provide the rules and regulations applicable for SMS and MMS services by the telecom companies respectively.
3. Provide the maximum character limits for SMS and MMS respectively.1
4. Provide whether the SMS of characters more than 160, can be converted into MMS by the telecom companies.
5. Provide the Names, Designation, Official Mobile Number and Email Id of the public officials posted in TRAI who are responsible to coordinate consumer grievances relating to telecom companies.
6. Provide the details of the Committees and working groups created by the TRAI.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO has not provided the complete information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Complainant vide his written submissions dated 25.08.2020 submitted that the present complaint had been filed primarily on the ground that the respondent public authority represented through the First Appellate Authority did not allow the provision of personal hearing despite a specific prayer made and the same was provided only when the Commission directed by specific remand order in the Second Appeal vide order dated 10.06.2019, and without going into the issue of non‐provision of complete information even till date, the complainant restricts with the following prayer in larger public interest which should be considered for passing due recommendation by the Commission for compliance.
1. Direct the respondent public authority and recommend other public authorities to decide first appeals by allowing personal hearing to the appellant and/or his/her authorized representative/advocate in person or via audio/video conference as requested as a normal/regular course of official business by passing speaking order within the time frame provided for under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless the appellant himself or herself waives off his or her right in this regard specifically and voluntarily.
2. Recommend the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India to incorporate due amendments in the OM No. 20/10/23/2007‐IR dated 09.07.2009 qua the first prayer as made herein above.2
It is trite to mention that deciding and disposing first appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi‐ judicial function and without the component of personal hearing, it loses its essence and causes filing of second appeal and in appropriate cases, the remand back of appeal for fresh disposal after affording personal hearing as what did transpire pertaining to the impugned RTI application, frustrates the basis of speedy trial (adjudication). The prime cause of appellant filing second appeal is the perfunctory and unsatisfactory disposal of the first appeal and underlying factor remains the non‐provision of the platform for hearing the appellant and/or his authorized representative. Therefore, the first appeal should not be rendered infructuous as one level of appeal by combining it with second appeal, in cases where the commission decides to hear the second appeal on merits even when the first appeals are decided without provision of personal hearing.
The complainant requested for adjudication on the basis of written submissions only.
The CPIO contended during the hearing that in this particular case the FAA gave a hearing on 03.07.2019 and the information sought was given after the hearing.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 23.08.2018 replied to the RTI application dated 13.08.2018 of the applicant as follows in respect of points 2,3,4 and 6:
"Information sought by you is not available in TRAI."
The FAA also vide order dated 26.09.2018 disposed of the first appeal and reiterated the reply of the CPIO. The hearing was given on 03.07.2019 in compliance with the CIC order only.
The complainant also in his complaint has objected to the FAA order and mentioned that no hearing was provided and there was summary malafide disposal in contravention of the ruling in the matter of R.K Jain vs Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India (CIC/SA/A/2014/000254) and most cherished principle of natural justice.
In respect of the recent written submissions of the complainant, it appears that the sole reason for him to continue with this complaint is due to the fact that no personal hearing was given by the FAA on time. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has rightly pointed out that wherever a 3 specific request for personal hearing is made, the FAA is duty bound to provide the same in the interest of natural justice.
Decision:
In view of the complainant's request for recommendation to the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India to incorporate due amendments in the OM No. 20/10/23/2007‐IR dated 09.07.2009 and make it compulsory for public authorities to decide first appeals by allowing personal hearing to the appellant and/or his/her authorized representative/advocate in person or via audio/video conference as requested as a normal/regular course of official business by passing speaking order within the time frame provided for under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless the appellant himself or herself waives off his or her right in this regard specifically and voluntarily is concerned, the Commission agrees partially to the fact that in case of proper disposal of first appeals and speaking orders by the FAAs, the large number of second appeals can be limited. However, it is also important to mention that the amendments in existing statute are purely within the jurisdiction of the legislature and the Commission is only an implementing agency under the Act. The complainant as a sincere citizen is at liberty to send his suggestions to the DoPT and Ministry of Law and Justice.
It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where the statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. Therefore, the Commission cannot make such generalised recommendation on the basis of a single request of an applicant. However, the FAA must take note that while deciding first appeals, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, personal hearings should invariably be given, especially when the appellant seeks the same.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) 4 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date Copy to:
The CPIO, DoPT North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001 5