Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/000870
Dated August 13, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri Rohit Sabharwal
Name of the Public Authority : BSNL, Patiala
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.14.3.09 with the CPIO, BSNL, Patiala.
He stated that it was brought to the notice of BSNL, Patiala that it has not
met the compliance of minimum wages act such as EPF (during one year)
during the execution of such work where as per instructions issued by Jt.
DDG(CA) BSNL, CO, New Delhi dated 8.11.04, it is clearly stated that while
passing bills of the contractors the authorities have to check whether the EPF
has been deposited by contractors and to submit copies along with bills. In
this connection, he requested for information against 9 points with regard to
the housekeeping work being carried out in Patiala Secondary Switching Area
(SSA). The CPIO, O/0 GMT, BSNL, Patiala replied on 31.3.09 furnishing point
wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal
dt.15.4.09 with the Appellate Authority giving point comments against the
replies furnished and reiterating his request for the information. He also
suggested that the DGM (Admn) cum CPIO take a crash course on RTI Act,
2005 to be clear about the basic tenets of the Act. The Appellate Authority
vide his Order dated 12.5.09 rejected the appeal and made a note of the
‘undesirable’ remarks passed by the Appellant against the CPIO. He stated
that the Appellant has framed questions of his choice and that with reference
to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the nature of questioning is interrogative and
does not come under the ambit of the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as
information sought does not exist in material form. However, they were still
replied to by the CPIO. Aggrieved with the decision, the Applicant filed a
second appeal dt.6.6.09 before CIC. In his appeal he stated that he is
possession of certain bills which show that work was done by an agency and
payment was made. The CPIO’s reply that names of employees and their
addresses are not available since no tender had materialized, is incorrect.
He also stated that reply to point 5 is incorrect since the bill he possesses
clearly show that payments have been made by the Planning branch and that
information has been deliberately withheld.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for August 13, 2009.
3. Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta, DGM(A) cum CPIO, Mr.Musaddi Lal, GMTD cum
Appellate Authority, Mr.Mahavir Singh, DE(Plg.) and Mr.Amrik Singh Matta,
AO(CA) represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was represented by Mr.Saurabh Gupta during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Applicant submitted that the Appellate Authority did not call the Appellant
for a hearing before passing the Order and that had the Appellant been
allowed to make a submission before the Appellate Authority, the issues could
have been sorted out at that stage itself. He also stated that he has no
grievance with regard to replies furnished against points 1,2,6,7,8 and 9 and
requested for information/clarification with regard to points 4 and 5.
6. The Respondent submitted that efforts were made to float a tender for the 60
sub divisions . However the tender process did not materialize, and hence in
around 10 subdivisions, including Patiala they had to depend on agencies who
sent their labour on a call basis to complete a piece of work. No contract
was drawn up with any of the agencies which provided the manpower as and
when it was required, and payments were made to the labourers through
the agency as per the wage rates drawn up by the Deputy Commissioner.
Since there was no contract drawn up with any of the agencies, and since
different labourers were sent by agencies at different times, the BSNL Patiala
does not have a list of employees supplied by the agencies and their
addresses. He added that for the rest of the subdivisions tenders were
floated. According to the Respondent, the annexed bill exhibited by the
Appellant at the hearing was one such payment made to an agency which
was requested to provide labour for BSNL without having drawn up a contract
and therefore, the answers furnished by the CPIO against points 4 and 5 were
correct. The Appellant, while accepting this submission from the Respondent,
complained about the wrong procedures being followed by BSNL Patiala.
7. In a written submission to the Commission dated 27.7.0 the CPIO also stated
that the point no. 4 does not constitute a specific query and was bereft of
material particulars of information and that the Appellant had failed to specify
the agency whose employee details he was seeking. He also vehemently
denied that wrong information had been furnished to the Appellant against
point no. 5 since even in this point the Appellant had not sought the name of
the agencies about whom he is seeking information.
8. The Commission while noting that available information has been furnished to
the Appellant advises the Appellant to seek redressal of his grievances with
regard to wrong procedures being followed, in an appropriate forum. It is also
the contention of the Commission that even if the information is not available
in material form, the Appellant has a right to be informed that it is not
available and that the Appellate Authority’s dismissal of the RTI application
on the pretext that the questions are interrogative in nature and therefore,
do not come under the ambit of the RTI Act, is a result of his wrong
interpretation of the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority is
also advised to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his
arguments at a hearing attended by both the parties, before issuing an Order
so that issues can get sorted out at the first appeal stage itself.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
pInformation Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Rohit Sabharwal
Kundan Bhawan
126 Model Gram
Ludhiana
Punjab
2. The CPIO & DGM (A)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
O/o General Manager Telecom District
Patiala 147 001
3. Shri Musaddi Lal
The Appellate Authority &
General Manager Telecom
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
O/o General Manager Telecom District
Patiala 147 001
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC