Hearing will take place tomorrow i.e. on 18/04/2018 in CIC as CPIO BSNL didn’t provide sought information

If everything is available in Telephone bill, then why not providing the telephone bills containing call details? Too much surprising that penal proceedings may be faced by CPIO but sought information available in the telephone bills can’t be provided.

yogimpsingh@gmail.com

02/06/2017

to J.Lsecy-cicpmosbpresidentofind.supremecourturgent-actionpvarshney
An appeal under subsection 3 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 being filed before as follows-
To
                             Chief information commissioner of India
                                   The Central Information Commission
                                               August Kranti Bhawan,
                                                    Bhikaji Cama Place,
                                                    New Delhi – 110066
Appellant-Yogi M. P. Singh S/O Rajendra Pratap Singh
Mohalla – Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road
District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh,  India
Respondents-1-CPIO / AGM(A) MIRZAPUR, Phone: 054422215500
2- First Appellate Authority Details: -GMTD MIRZAPUR, Phone: 05442222944, jl_gautam@yahoo.co.in,
Prayer-CPIO may be directed to provide the sought Information withheld by him illegally and wilful disobedience made by CPIO as he denied the sought information in a cryptic manner consequently invites penal action under section 20 of Right to Information Act 2005. Accountability of First Appellate Authority may also be fixed as he only made efforts to shield the CPIO instead of adopting a logistic approach in the matter consequently acted contrary to spirit of transparency act.
Most revered Sir –Your applicant invites the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir with due respect to following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of sought information as-
Sought information -1-Please make available details of actions taken on attached grievance by the concerned staffs of public authorities.
2-Usage charges are levied on consumers but usage details are not made available by the B.S.N.L. IPSO FACTO obvious. Please make available usage details in regard to attached bills.
3-Please make available details of one time charges. Constituents of one time charges levied on customer should be made available by the CPIO IN regard to attached scanned PDF COPY of provided bills by BSNL.
4-Please make available THE CRITERIA of Tax levied on the customers in view of attached bills.
5-All other service providing companies provide usage details but B.S.N.L. not. Please make available minutes of proceedings in this reference if B.S.N.L. moved forward in this direction.
Enter Registration Number-BSUPE/R/2017/80013, Name-Yogi M P Singh, Date of filing    09/03/2017, Public Authority-BSNL UP(E), Status-REQUEST DISPOSED OF, Date of action   19/04/2017.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of denial of sought information by the CPIO in a cryptic manner as-
Reply :- 1.  Necessary rebate has been given to you as per your grievance.
2.     Usage summary charges details like a local call, STD call, ISD call, Discount etc. are provided by BSNL in subscriber bill.
3.     One time charges details as the deposit is given in subscriber Bill.
4.     Tax Details description as Service Tax @ 14.00%, Swachh Bharat Cess @ 0.50%, Krishi Kalyan Cess @ 0.50% are provided in Subscriber Bill.
5.     Usage summary details like local call charges, STD call charges, ISD call charges, Discount etc. are provided by BSNL in subscriber bill.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your appellant sought information and requested it to provide within time as stipulated under subsection 1 of section 7 but CPIO violated this provision of transparency act. Ipso facto obvious that date of filing of R.T.I. Application 09-03-2017 and the cryptic reply made by CPIO on 19-04-2017i.e. after 41 days but it is mandatory for CPIO to provide sought information within 30 days from date of receipt of R.T.I. Application. Your appellant filed an appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 which description is as follows-
Enter Registration Number BSUPE/A/2017/60015, Name-Yogi M P Singh, Date of filing-08/05/2017, Public Authority-BSNL UP(E)
Status      APPEAL DISPOSED OF, Date of action-19/05/2017
Reply :- Nothing is incomplete. Information provided is based on facts & truth and as per query.
Short submissions are as follows-
1-CPIO and F.A.A. are acting like the inscrutable face of the Sphinx.
2-CPIO deliberately procrastinated on the submitted online application in schizophrenic way.
3-CPIO took under teeth provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 by denying sought information in cryptic manner to your appellant illegally as concerned wanted to cover under the blanket the corruption of department by withholding the disclosure of sought information and First Appellate Authority also covered the wrongdoing of department by upholding the denial of CPIO blindly. 4-Disclosure of part information by the CPIO itself cryptic and failed efforts to shield its privileged staffs that are entertaining luxuries vehicles at the cost of public exchequer along with family and relatives.
5-Roll of F.A.A. is a reflection of his insolence as he, not only supported the CPIO during entire episode but also acted against the spirit of Right to Information Act 2005.
6-Right to Information Act 2005 was brought up by the government of India in order to enhance transparency and accountability in the working of public authority but it seems that it will remain failed to achieve its goal if consumer’s rights would be infringed in this way. If everything is available in the bills, then why not, they are providing the bills in which entire details may be available. Your appellant never sought rebate but action against those who are providing arbitrary bills to consumers. Your appellant needs entire call detail so that a complaint may be filed under Cr.P.C. 156 (3) in a court of law. If no phone call was made, then how did they charge for phone call? The matter is concerned with rampant corruption in B.S.N.L. Mirzapur.
This is a humble request of your appellant that it is the obligation of Central information commission to be instrumental in providing sought information and those created obstacles be subjected to penal proceedings in accordance with the law of land. For your appellant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.
                                                             Yours sincerely
Date-02/06/2017                       Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh. Pin code-231001.
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

Right to Information Act 2005 was brought up by the government of India in order to enhance transparency and accountability in the working of public authority but it seems that it will remain failed to achieve its goal if consumer’s rights would be infringed in this way. If everything is available in the bills, then why not, they are providing the bills in which entire details may be available. Your appellant never sought rebate but action against those who are providing arbitrary bills to consumers. Your appellant needs entire call detail so that a complaint may be filed under Cr.P.C. 156 (3) in a court of law. If no phone call was made, then how did they charge for phone call? The matter is concerned with rampant corruption in B.S.N.L. Mirzapur.

Preeti Singh
2 years ago

6. The appellant stated that the respondent should provide him expenditure details of the fuel utilized by their telephone exchanges. Further, he stated that the respondent should provide him exchange-wise details of the cable laying done by the BSNL. In addition, he stated that the respondent should also furnish him details of the usage charges w.r.t to his telephone bills. He pointed out delays of 35 and 41 days respectively in the CPIO reply(s).
7. The respondent stated that approximately 250 generators are functional in their telecom region. Hence, compiling exchange-wise fuel expenditure would involve a disproportionate effort. However, centralized data is available in their regard which can be supplied to the appellant. Further, he stated that the details of usage charges are already printed on their telephone bills. In this respect, they agreed to give in writing the factual position in the matter along with a copy of the bills. Discussion/ observation: