A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

CPIO is strictly directed to send a proper written submission justifying the invocation of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act in the matter as well as a proper explanation for deputing an officer to represent the case who was not even acquainted with the fact

Appellant: Main gate entry details was not offered for inspection; hence, he did not go for inspection of the record - Respondent: Inspection was offered which was not availed till the date of hearing without disclosing the reasons - CIC: Reply upheld

Information on the Under Trial Prisoners like those who have spent more than 50% of their punishment period - Part data provided, some refused while the rest was not maintained - CIC: PIO can only provide information which is readily available in records

Has any Doctor of GDMO, Specialist or Teaching cadre working in Hospitals or any Health facility of Delhi government been granted 3 years of study leave? - CIC: Appellant may approach the concerned department/Hospitals to obtain the information

Registration documents - Respondent: Inspection of records was offered, but the Appellant did not appear - Appellant: Concerned official was not available to show the files - CIC: Provide complete point-wise information as per the available documents

List of examination center in Maharashtra for NTA NET was denied claiming that the information is not available in the form desired by the applicant - CIC: No relief as reply citing

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 release by MeitY for public consultation

Delhi High Court directs Jamia Millia Islamia University to disclose PhD Thesis under the RTI Act

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Appellant: Upto the time the second appeal was filed, no reply was provided by the PIO of BSNL - CIC: For the inconvenience and detriment caused the appellant, a compensation of Rs. 750/- granted under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act

18 Apr, 2015

Information sought:- The appellant has sought the following information:

1. (a) Information over the availability of BROADBAND Services through Telecom, BSNL, Bisesarganj Exchange, Varanasi.

(b) Information over availability of BSNL NETWORK and connectivity to Internet through Wi-max by Telecom, BSNL, Bisesarganj Exchange, Varanasi.

(c) Information over the last date for INSTALLATION and rendering of Telecom SERVICES Telephone Number 0542-2330040 to the undersigned.

(d)Information over the action taken to install consumer’s landline and broadband services as above.

(e) Give reasons of non installation of Landline and Broadband (Customer ID : 1022073598) and providing Services by the JTO/SDO/Divisional Engineer, Telecom, BSNL Harirath Exchange, Varanasi, if any.

(f) Exact true photostate copies of remarks of JTO, Telecom, Harirath Exchamge, Varanasi register with signature with reference to refusal to install Telephone No. 0542-2330040 to the undersigned, if any.

(g) Information over the date on which the undersigned was informed of installation of BSNL services against deposit of Rs. 500/- vide DN No : 0001738004.

2. Information over the Official email ID of the undersigned authorities of Telecom, BSNL:

A. CGM, BSNL, UP (East), Lucknow.

B. GM, O/o GMTD, BSNL, Shivpura, Varanasi.

C. Divisional Engineer, Broadband, BSNL, Shivpurwa, Varanasi.

D. Divisional Engineer, Telecom, BSNL, Harirath Exchange, Beniabagh Exchange, Varanasi.

E.. Chairman, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,

Janpath, New Delhi – 110001

F. Divisional Engineer, Broadband, BSNL, Harirath Exchange, Varanasi.

G. SDO Telecom, Harirath Exchange, Teliabagh, Varanasi.

H. JTO Telecom, BSNL, Harirath Exchange, Varanasi.

I. Telephone Adalat, New Delhi.

J. Public Grievances Cell, UP (East), Varanasi.

K. Telecom Circle officer, Public Grievances Cell, UP(E), Lucknow.

L. Nodal Officer, Upbhokta Shikayat Samadhan Kendra, BSNL, Shivpurwa, Varanasi.

M. DGM(A), Telecom, BSNL, Shivpurwa, Varanasi.

N. Commercial Officer, Telecom, BSNL, Teliabagh, Varanasi.

O. AO, TR (CDR), Telecom, BSNL, Shivpurwa, Varanasi.

P. AO, TR, North, Nadesar, Varanasi.

Q. PRO to General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Shivpurwa, Varanasi.

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

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Krishna Deo appellant’s representative through VC

Respondent: Mr. R C Gupta APIO through VC

The APIO stated that the information sought by the appellant in her RTI application has been supplied vide letter dated 25/02/2014. The appellant’s representative pointed out that upto the time the 2nd appeal was filed no reply was provided and the respondent’s letter dated 25/02/2014 has not been received. He pleaded that the respondent should be directed to supply copy of their letter dated 25/02/2014 and some compensation should be awarded for the detriment caused to the appellant due non-supply of timely information.

Decision notice:

The APIO is directed to supply the information sought by the appellant in her RTI application dated 29/10/2013 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. From the foregoing it is apparent that the appellant did not receive information timely. For the inconvenience caused to her, she deserves to be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act we direct the department to compensate her by an amount of Rs. 750/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to her. Accordingly, the CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mrs. Anita Gupta v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000321/6784

Appellant: Upto the time the second appeal was filed, no reply was provided by the PIO of BSNL - CIC: For the inconvenience and detriment caused the appellant, a compensation of Rs. 750/- granted under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.