Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
  • 0
dayalmjoshi

RTI reply from MTNL, PIO denying information sought for address, date of installation of landline installed.

Question

dayalmjoshi

Sir,

I had made an application on date 16/08/2017 asking details of two landlines number, asking details as the date of installation of the said numbers, installation address of the above numbers, whether the number is owned by business, ownership details documents submitted before installation and if its been operational / functional till date.

This was due to the fact on record of MCGM the said area is declared as Residence incompltete with no property / assessment tax levied.The lease papers and registration dates back to 2010, and a nursing home function with no record found with the local health department.

The APIO MTNL, vide dat 19/09/2017, replied stating the information relates to personal information of third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. the APIO states, had communicated for consent from the third party under section 11(1) of RTI act 2005 and since third party has objection for disclosing any such information, therfore the information sought can not be disclosed under RTI act 8(1)j of 2005.

.

Please suggest if the above is a personal information sought, as the MTNL itself publishes directory with detailed information, but additional query sought by me was date of installation and the documents furnished for installation, which is generally asked by MTNL.

can such documents be denied and was a communication for consent necessary from the owner of the said landline.

Thanks for your advise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Prasad GLN

SPIO word is not final.  Go for first appeal and to second appeal and let CIC decide the issue.

The information solicited was details incorporated in Land line application to MTNL, which is not confidential or personal information.  CPIO denying information is not justified.  Irrespective of third party comments final decision is that of CPIO.  When the Public record is not third party information, there is no point in seeking third party's comments.  There is no purpose in having Directory inquiry number if that information is personal in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • momita
      By momita
      New Delhi: The Supreme Court next week will hear a petition alleging that the Centre and various state governments have “stifled” the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by failing to ensure appointments of information commissioners.
      The plea that was filed by RTI activists Commodore Lokesh Batra (retired) along with Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri on 24 April will be heard by the top court when it reopens Monday after the summer break.
      The plea suggests that despite huge backlogs of appeals and complaints in many information commissions across the country, information commissioners have not been appointed. This has resulted in information commissions taking months, and in some cases even years, to decide appeals.
      “Currently, there are four vacancies in the Central Information Commission, even as more than 23,500 appeals and complaints are pending,” the petitioners claim.
      According to the petition, the State Information Commission (SIC) of Andhra Pradesh is completely non-functional since no information commissioner has been appointed there.
      Similarly, the Maharashtra SIC has four vacancies resulting in a backlog of around 40,000 cases. In Kerala, just one officer is manning the commission and has to adjudicate on more than 14,000 pending appeals and complaints.
      Recounting the state of affairs in various state commissions, the plea has noted that there are six vacancies in the SIC of Karnataka even though 33,000 cases are pending there.
      Odisha and Telangana are the only states where appointments have been made. There too the backlog goes up to 10,000 and 15,000 appeals respectively.
      The situation in West Bengal is particularly grim with two commissioners hearing appeals/complaints that were filed almost 10 years ago, the plea points out.
      “Further, several commissions like that of Gujarat, Nagaland and Maharashtra are functioning without the chief information commissioner, even though the RTI Act envisages a crucial role for the chief commissioner, with the administration and superintendence of the commission vesting with the chief,” the plea reads.
      “The effective functioning of information commissions, the final adjudicators under the RTI Act, is critical for the health of the transparency regime in the country,” the activists argue in their plea.

      View full entry
    • momita
      By momita
      The plea that was filed by RTI activists Commodore Lokesh Batra (retired) along with Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri on 24 April will be heard by the top court when it reopens Monday after the summer break.
      The plea suggests that despite huge backlogs of appeals and complaints in many information commissions across the country, information commissioners have not been appointed. This has resulted in information commissions taking months, and in some cases even years, to decide appeals.
      “Currently, there are four vacancies in the Central Information Commission, even as more than 23,500 appeals and complaints are pending,” the petitioners claim.
      According to the petition, the State Information Commission (SIC) of Andhra Pradesh is completely non-functional since no information commissioner has been appointed there.
      Similarly, the Maharashtra SIC has four vacancies resulting in a backlog of around 40,000 cases. In Kerala, just one officer is manning the commission and has to adjudicate on more than 14,000 pending appeals and complaints.
      Recounting the state of affairs in various state commissions, the plea has noted that there are six vacancies in the SIC of Karnataka even though 33,000 cases are pending there.
      Odisha and Telangana are the only states where appointments have been made. There too the backlog goes up to 10,000 and 15,000 appeals respectively.
      The situation in West Bengal is particularly grim with two commissioners hearing appeals/complaints that were filed almost 10 years ago, the plea points out.
      “Further, several commissions like that of Gujarat, Nagaland and Maharashtra are functioning without the chief information commissioner, even though the RTI Act envisages a crucial role for the chief commissioner, with the administration and superintendence of the commission vesting with the chief,” the plea reads.
      “The effective functioning of information commissions, the final adjudicators under the RTI Act, is critical for the health of the transparency regime in the country,” the activists argue in their plea.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy