Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/09/00349
Dated April 22, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Ms.Kamala Mukund Devpura
Name of the Public Authority : Department of Telecommunication
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application dt.1.11.08 with the CPIO, DoT. She
requested for the following information:
i) A copy of action taken report/reply of Director CCS sought by ADG
(V.Tech) on 7.5.07
ii) The grounds on which she is directed to approach consumer forum by
ADG (V.Tech)
The Director (V-Tech) replied on 28.11.08 stating that the question 3a
pertains to Director (CS) for action taken report on the Vigilance letter dt.
10.5.07 and against 3b grounds are not documented information. In
response to the RTI request, the CPIO wrote to the Appellant on 28.12.08
drawing THE Applicant’s attention to the CPIO’s Office O.M. dt. 5.12.08
stating that the information being sought is to be provided by CPIOs of
Dir(ASIII.) and Dir (V-Tech) and that the request was transferred on
10.11.08. On 18.12.08 the CPIO and Director (AS-III) wrote to the Applicant
stating that the action taken report/reply of Director (CS) is not available in
the records. Aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed his first appeal on
29.11.08 reiterating her request for the information. On not receiving any
reply from the Appellate Authority, the Applicant filed a second appeal
dt.28.2.09 before CIC stating that she would like to be provided information
on why the ADG(V-Tech) has directed her to approach the consumer forum.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for April 22, 2009.
3. Mr. Balvinder Singh, Dir(AS.III) & CPIO, Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh, Dir(V-
Tech) and Mr.C. Manoj, Dir(Security)represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that on inquiry from the Director (Vigilance), the
CPIO ,DoT wrote to the Service Provider ( Tata Tele Services, Maharashtra
Ltd. (TTML) ) regarding the compliant filed by the Appellant asking for their
comments. The Service provider (TTML) replied on 9.4.09 stating that
detailed comments have been forwarded to the Director (AS.III) on the
complaint vide their letter dt. 17.2.06. They added that the TTML had
discussed the complaint in person with the Director (V-TECH) on 26.5.06 and
also on telephone on 25.3.09 after receiving the letter from the CPIO.
According to TTML they have already refunded the excess charges to the
complainant, which were charged erroneously and the same was accepted by
her as indicated in her original complaint dt. 9.4.05. TTML requested that the
complaint now be closed.
6. The CPIO is directed to provide the action taken report to the Appellant based
on this communication between the DoT and the TTML, within 15 days of
issue of this Order. As for the query on why the Appellate Authority has
directed the Appellant to approach a Consumer Forum, the Commission
upholds the decision of the Appellate Authority which states that the answer
to this question is not documented.
7. The appeal is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Ms.Kamala Mukund Devpura
(Proprietress : M/s.Pallavi)
Shop No.1, Mahalaxmi Chambers
18th June Road, Panaji
Goa 403 001
2. Mr.Harsh Vardhan Singh
The CPIO & Director (V.Tech)
Vigilance Wing
Department of Telecommunication
Room No.1011, Sanchar Bhawan
20-Ashoka Road
New Delhi 110 001
3. The Appellate Authority
Department of Telecommunication
(O & M Section)
Room No.516, Sanchar Bhawan
20-Ashoka Road
New Delhi 110 001
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC