Information regarding unwanted SMSs on appellant’s mobile - information was provided & it was also clarified as to how subscribers can deactivate unwanted SMSs - Appellant: FAA did not decide his appeal - CIC: FAA should be cautious in future
The appellant had sent 04 applications dated 02/05/2011, 06/06/2011, 24/08/2011 & 30/08/2011 to Principal General Manager regarding unwanted SMSs on his mobile nos.9420189494 & 9420189495:
1- The reasons for not acknowledging/replying the letters.
2- The action being taken on the applications.
3- Expected date of complying to my request.
4- The reasons for such a delay.
5- The person (with name & designation) responsible for this delay.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The PIO has not given the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The appellant stated that he has not received the complete information as requested in his RTI application dated 14/09/2011. The CPIO stated that from a bare reading of the appellant’s RTI application it is apparent that he is espousing his grievance and is asking questions/information of interrogatory nature which is not ‘information’ as per Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. He further stated that the RTI application has been replied on 14/10/2011 giving the information as available on record and it has also been clarified as to how subscribers can deactivate unwanted SMSs. The appellant pointed out that he had submitted his 1st appeal and also its reminder at the FAA’s office and holds acknowledgement for both but the FAA did not decide his appeal. He further stated that he had personally visited the FAA’s office to request for hearing but the PA did not allow him to meet the FAA.
The information, as available on record, has been provided to the appellant. As regards the appellant’s submissions that the FAA neither decided his appeal nor did he give any opportunity of hearing, it is needless to say that deciding appeal after 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. This Commission always gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the matter at hand we do not appreciate the lackadaisical approach of the then FAA who failed to decide the appeal and would like to caution him for future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. A. V. Rajderkar v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001945/4087