Appellant stated that despite specific request FAA did not provide an opportunity of hearing – CIC: rendering hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence; so FAA should give an opportunity of hearing specially if appellant requests

ORDER

Information sought:

The appellant has sought the following information regarding customer ID1020109951 and Account number 1020311416. Name and Address of the Customer: Roshan Lal Dhanda, H No. 482, Opp. Kucha No. 9, jail road, Field Ganj, Ludhiana (PB)- 141008. Number 0161-2730703

(i) Give the certified copy of Subscriber from duly filled by applicant or BSNL employee at the time of request of Subscriber (Roshan Lal Dhanda) for the above said telephone connection.

(ii) Give the certified copies of Address proof and Photo ID proof submitted by Subscriber (Roshan Lal Dhanda) while submitting his request/subscriber form for the above said telephone connection.

(iii) Whether it is mandatory to submit the Address proof and Photo ID proof along with the Subscriber request form. Provide the certified copy of BSNL act/rules/notification/circular/memo etc.

(iv) When this telephone connection was started for service by BSNL. Also provide certified copies of installation sheet/completion Report etc.

(v) Give the account statement of the above said account number from the start of connection till date.

(vi) Give the final status of the connection as on date.

(vii) Whether the account is closed on date. If yes, kindly tell the closure procedure to be adopted by Subscriber. Provide the certified copy of BSNL act/rules/notification/circular/memo etc regarding same.

(viii) Provide the certified copy of letter given by subscriber at the time of closure.

(ix) Whether it is mandatory to submit Address proof and Photo ID proof at the time of closure of telephone connection. If yes, provide the certified copy of BSNL act/rules/notification/circular/memo etc regarding same.

(x) If yes to point no. (ix), provide the certified copy of Address proof and Photo ID proof submitted by subscriber at the time of request of closure of above said connection.

(xi) Whether KYC form was filled by BSNL during the installation, operation or before closure of the above said telephone connection.

Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present

Appellant:  Mr. G S Khurana appellant’s through VC

Respondent:  Mr. Raj Deo CPIO through VC M: 09417500555

The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant has not received the information sought in his RTI application dated 12/04/2014. He contended that some miscreant had managed to install a landline connection in the appellant’s premises and being the landlord is entitled to the information. He also pointed out that there is something fishy in the matter as the respondent in reply to another letter have informed that the subscriber’s file is not traceable. While concluding he stated that the FAA, inspite of specific request, did not provide any opportunity of hearing. The CPIO stated that the information relates to third party and is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. As regards the availability of the subscriber’s file, he stated that he will enquire from the custodian of the records.

Decision notice:

The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’. The appellant’s representative has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the respondent’s decision.

As regards the appellant’s representative’s submissions that the appellant was not given an opportunity of personal hearing by the FAA, it is needless to say that rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and accords with the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of hearing to the parties also brings greater clarity to the adjudicating authorities. This Commission always gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties but this does not appear to be usually done by the FAAs, as probably there are practical difficulties therein, partly arising out of the number of appeals involved and partly due to the limited time frame in which the matters are required to be decided. In view of this, we would only like to suggest that the FAA should, as far as possible give the appellant including third party, if any, an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Darshan Kochhar v. BSNL in File No.CIC/BS/A/2014/001507/7904