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
R Madhok

CIC ordered BSNL to provide information in simplest language and elaborating technicalities in information

Recommended Posts

R Madhok

PIO is bound to provide information in simplest language; if the record submitted by PIO has technical language then PIO is duty bound to provide information by giving details about technicalities. -----I.C. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi

The function of PIO is as a guide who should provide information elaborating the technicalities in its information. If the technical words are not common then the information should be provided with uses of illustrative material. -----I.C. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Central Information Commission, New Delhi.

Information be provided in simple language

Due to not getting the requisite information from the CPIO, O/o General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jalandhar regarding disruption of broad band connection for number of days. The information sought regarding fault and redressal of such complaints were not properly replied.

In this connection I, the appellant appeared before Hon’ble Information Commissioner Sh. M.L. Sharma and from the respondent side DGM (HR) Cum CPIO appeared before the commission.

In my appeal the CPIO was directed to provide information with directions:

Query was: Kindly provide me the reason of non connectivity to my Braod Band from Telephone number *****. The broadband connectivity goes of within minutes of logging in. Kindly provide me the time taken in redressal of such complaints.

1. POINT RAISED: 1. The CPIO who has addressed the reply:

 

 

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

(A Govt. of India Enterprises)

O/o General Manager Telecom Distt. CTO Compled, Jalandhar.

No. CPIO/RTI/JL-149-10/18

Dated at JL the 10th May 2010

ORDER

This constitutes an order under Section 7(1) of Right to information Act 2005 disposing off application No. Nil dated 26/02/10 (received on dated 02/03/10) of Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, B-xxx/63, Railway Road, Phagwara Distt. Kapurthala 144401, under section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005 seeking certain information therein.

The application of the requestor underwent examination of the undersigned in terms of provisions of RTI Act-2005 and the undersigned has reached conclusion that information sought, merits disclosure.

The information corresponding to queries of request as received from the custodian of information is attached in Annexure-1 (7 pages)

The decision of mine is applicable within 30 days from the receipt of the decision before the Appellate Authority. The details of Apellate Authority are furnished below.

Sh. H.K. Verma

General Manager Telecom District,

CTO Complex, BSNL Jalandhar

 

DA: As above

(Ravinder Kumar)

DGM (HR)-Cum_CPIO

Ph. No. 0181-2227717

Fax No. 0181-2222190

Copy to: Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, B-xxx/63 Railway Road, Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala 144401

 

 

I argued that the information should be provided in a simple language and not in cumbersome form.

 

  1. I.C: The I.C. admitted my appeal and directed: The information should be provided in simple language, which can be understood by the citizen.

 

Information provided by the CPIO shown to the I.C. It was in the shape of enclosure:

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

 

(A Govt of India Enterprises)

O/o D.E. (Phones) Phagwara

To

 

D.G.M. (HR)-Cum-CPIO

O/o GMTD

BSNL,

Jalandhar

No: DEP/PGW?GENL/69 dated at PGW 09-04-2010

Sub:- Supply of information under RTI Act. Case of Sh. Rajneesh Madhok

Kind ref your office memo no:- CPIO/RTI/JL/149-10/13 dated JL 03-04-2010, the required information is as under:

(1) Regarding Para 7: Due to OFC cable cutting the broadband remained faulty from 15-02-2010 to 18-02-2010 & 26-02-2010 to 02-05-2010.

(2) Regarding Para 8 to 10:- The loop resistance of this telephone no is 209 ohm & between Limb B to G:- 1510 K Ohm. Which is within limit

This is for your kind information & N.A.

Sd/-

D.E.( Phones)

Divisional Engineer;

Phagwara-144401

 



  1. Reply of CPIO in hearing: The CPIO said that the information had been provided as in the record and supplied as per documents received from the custodian of information.
  2.  

    I.C’s decision:

    The information should be provided in the simplest manner. The duty of PIO is to provide information which is to be understood by the applicant. The technical words provided in the information should be avoided and the PIO is duty bound to provide information in the simplest way. The I.C stressed that the information is the fundamental right of the citizen and gave a great dose to the CPIO on the points:

    1. That you have replied the queries by writing word ORDER on the reply. You have not mentioned anybody’s name to whom the ORDER IS BEING MADE. You have not mentioned anywhere to whom the reply is addressed to. You have mentioned that Copy to : Sh. Rajneesh Madhok,B-xxx/63, Railway Road, Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala 144401.

    2. Under which capacity you have passed this order. You are the information provider. Do you know who is the bridegroom of the occasion? In this case the bridegroom is the appellant. As all the invitations are being circulated in marriages with highlighting the name of bridegroom like wise the name of applicant should be in the first place of reply.

    3. The IC told to PIO that you people are not doing your jobs sincerely. You people go to the offices by fastening neck ties but don’t do your job sincerely as you people are the boss to every customer. Mind one thing now the trend is not like before. You should be sincere to your work. The private companies are lagging you behind because you are not sincere to your job. You have to face competition but though having infrastructure you could not compete with private operators.

    4. Mind it the rule of providing information as per availablility of record should be justified. If you people don’t maintain the record properly then the reply that the PIO has provided information according to record is vague reply. The points raised by the complainant is clearly maintainable and the cognizance on the matter should be taken.

    5. The PIO who discharge his duty is a public servant and the appellant is public. So, he should reply to the public as if he is replying to his boss and should expeditiously dispose of the application. You people are keep on waiting for 29th day to respond.

    6. The objections raised by the appellant are perfectly justified.

    7. The PIO is duty bound to create or enlarge the information if the information provided take away a right of applicant. PIO should take care of the rights of the applicant.

    8. If your record is not properly maintained then the duty of PIO is not over by providing the information as per record only. The point that NO MAN SHOULD SUFFER BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE OF THE OFFICIAL STAFF. IF IT IS NOT MAINTAINED PROPERLY.

    9. It is due to the PIO’s negligence that the appellant has to come to Delhi to attend the hearing.

    10. The IC directed the PIO to avoid technical words by replying to the queries and if there are technical words then the PIO is duty bound to provide the reply in simplest manner which can be understood to everybody.

     

    With the above order Hon’ble IC concluded. The judgement has not been uploaded till date.

    FILE NO. CIC/DS/A/2010/000855/LS

    HEARING ATTENDED BEFORE: HON’BLE COMMISSIONER MR. M.L. SHARMA. ON 03/03/20111

     

    Rajneesh Madhok,

    B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,

    St. No. 2, Railway Road,

    Phagwara-144401 (Pb)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MOHANDAS

Dear Shri Kariraji,

 

Good decision by the Hon'ble I.C. The forum members will be benifted in the event of posting the original version in the website in order to derive full advantage of the same.

May kindly do the needful.

 

MOHANDAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
The forum members will be benifted in the event of posting the original version in the website in order to derive full advantage of the same.

May kindly do the needful.

 

 

With the above order Hon’ble Information Commissioner concluded. The judgement has not been uploaded till date.

FILE NO. CIC/DS/A/2010/000855/LS

HEARING ATTENDED BEFORE: HON’BLE COMMISSIONER MR. M.L. SHARMA. ON 03/03/20111

 

As per Mr Madhok, the order is still not available on the CIC website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R Madhok

rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_A_2010_000855_M_53845.pdf

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

File No.CIC/DS/A/2010/000855/LS

Appellant : Shri Rajneesh Madhok

Public Authority : BSNL, Jalandhar

Date of Hearing : 3.3.2011

Date of Decision : 3.3.2011

FACTS :

This matter is called for hearing today dated 3.3.2011. Appellant present.

BSNL is represented by Shri Ravinder Kumar, DGM (HR) (CPIO).

2. The appellant submits that BSNL had given him broadband connection

which malfunctioned over a long period compelling him to file the RTI

application. He, however, fairly submits that the connection is functioning well

at present but insists for information on paras 07, 08, 09 & 10 of his RTI

application dated 26.2.2010.

3. The CPIO, however, submits that requisite information was provided to

the appellant regarding these paras vide letter dated 10.5.2010. He reads out the

response which is couched in a technical language and is unintelligible to a lay

person. Besides, it is not para-wise. Hence, CPIO is directed to provide parawise

information to the appellant in a language which is easily understandable by

a lay person.

Sd/-

(M.L. Sharma)

Central Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied

against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the

CPIO of this Commission.

(K.L. Das)

Deputy Registrar

Address of parties :-

1. Shri Ravinder Kumar

DGM (HR) (CPIO),

BSNL, O/o GMTD, CTO Complex,

Jalandhar, Punjab

2. Shri Rajneesh Madhok

B-XXX/63, Nehru Marg,

Street No 2, Railway Road,

Phagwara-144401, Punjab

[PDF] CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

  • Like 1

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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.


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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