CIC: through the TRAI, one can access the information on the action taken by the service provider on a complaint as available with the service provider; inaction on the part of the TRAI can be agitated only before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
23 Jun, 2014Facts
The applicant has sought the following information regarding his complaints filed with VODAFONE Delhi under TCCCPR, 2010 for receiving unsolicited voice calls/SMS’s on my Mobile No. 9654462917 during the period 27th September 2011 to 07th October 2012. 1. Status/Action taken on all complaints lodged by me with VODAFONE, comprising of following details/information: (i) Date of Complaint Lodged. (ii) Telephone Number against which complaint was lodged by me. (iii) Category of complaint lodged. (iv) Registered Complaint number (UCC) given by VODAFONE. (v) Action taken by service provider on the above complaints, as per TCCCPR Act, 2010. 2. Out of total telephone numbers against which I made and registered the complaint (i) Please mention who were Registered Telemarkets and who were unregistered telemarketers. (ii) Total numbers of complaints received against the particular telephone number from all the customers, who received DND Call/SMS from that particular telephone number. (iii) How many telephone numbers have been disconnected as per TCCCPR Act, 2010. Please furnish the information giving telephone numbers and the UCC Complaint Number. (iv) On how many telephone numbers/service providers/telemarketers you have levied penalty (Financial penalty as well as the other penalties under TCCCPR) and what is the amount of penalty levied and the actual amount of recovered penalties from these service providers/telemarketers. (v) How many telemarketers have been blacklisted? Please furnish the name of the Telemarketers who have been blacklisted on my complaint. Please provide copies of the document through which these blacklisted telemarketers were/are intimated formally about the blacklisting.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000421 RTI application dated 12/10/2011:
The applicant has registered his mobile 9654462917for “NDNC” (National Do not Call Registry) but still he received promotional voice calls and SMS. Aggrieved by this he had filed various complaints. Through his RTI application having 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. queries spread over 06 pages he had sought various information relating to not taking action and reasons for the same mentioning certain relevant rules of TCCCPR regulation.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000692 RTI application dated 12/11/2012
The applicant has sought the following information related to his mobile number 9654462917:-
1. What is the present status of DND registration of his mobile number.
2. If his number is fully blocked DND since May, 2009 then inform the reason for multiple entries on website of TRAI and as per screenshot attached, on download from TRAI website.
3. Please provide me with all the documents of change in status from May, 2009 till 10.11.2012, from Active DND to Deactivate DND, as appearing on websites of TRAI.
4. Please also inform how the DND status kept on changing whereas I have never given any request for change of DND Status since May, 2009, when I first got the Fully Blocked DND status activated, then who did it and at whose behest.
5. Is there any action taken on my complaint and please inform me the action taken against the VODAFONE by TRAI, DOT and Telecom Minister on my complaint made to all the concerned through e-mail from 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. nd October, 2012 onwards. Since, I lodged my complaint with TRAI, DOT and Telecom Minister so I should be informed separately on the action taken by the individual Deptt., Regulator and Ministry and if no action is taken then reason for the non taking of the action is to be informed to me.
6. What is the status of my request put by me from 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. nd October 2012 onwards, with VODAFONE through IVR and through the website of VODAFONE.
7. Please inform that as per the TCCCPR, 2010 and as per the initial documents forming part of the TCCCPR,2010, whether every DND complaint lodged by the subscriber is to be given a separate Unique Complaint Registration number by VODAFONE or VODAFONE/ Service provider can register multiple DND complaints of a subscriber under one Unique Complaint number. Clause 19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. of Chapter IV on Customer Complaints under notification on TCCCPR, 2010 suggests that every complaint should have a separate Unique Complaint Identification which means that multiple complaints lodged by a subscriber cannot be registered by the Service provider under one Unique Complaint registration number. Please inform the provision.
8. Please inform me that so far how many DND complaints are submitted by me to VODAFONE for my mobile number 9654462917, for the period from 27.09.2011 till 10.11.2012.
9. Please inform me that how many DND complaints are registered by VODAFONE for DND complaints lodged by me for my Mobile Number 9654462917, for the period from 27.09.2011 till 10.11.2012.
10.Please inform me that how many Unique complaint registration numbers have been generated for DND complaints lodged by me for my Mobile Number 9654462917, for the period from 27.09.2011 till 10.11.2012.
11.Please inform the reason, if the number of DND complaints lodged by me are not matching with the number of DND complaints registered by VODAFONE, for my Mobile Number 9654462917, for the period from 27.09.11 till 10.11.2012.
12.Please inform the reasons, if the number of DND complaints lodged by me are not matching with the number of DND Unique Complaint Registration numbers registered by VODAFONE, for my Mobile Number 9654462917, for the period from 27.09.2011 till 10.11.2012. 13. As per the notification No. 305-17/2010-QOS issued on Dated 1st December, 2010 and forming part Gazette of India under Extraordinary, part III, Section 4 under TRAI, the service provider has been violating following sections/clauses of TCCCPR, 2010: (i) Clause/section 19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. (a) of Chapter IV on Customer Complaints, for registering multiple DND complaints under one Unique Complaint Number. (ii) Clause/section 19(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority. of Chapter IV on Customer Complaints, for not intimating the complainant about the result of the investigation and the action taken on the DND complaint and rather VODAFONE acted unprofessionally, illegally by sending stereotype SMS mentioning “Based on your feedback your complaint has been resolved”.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held 27/02/2014: File Nos. CIC/BS/A/2013/000389+ CIC/BS/A/2013/000421
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra; Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Narayan, SO(RTI) representing CPIO; Mr. Sunil Gupta, SRO (QoS);
The appellant stated that Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act also includes “the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;” hence, the TRAI has the authority to access the information sought by him in his RTI application dated 09/10/2012 from Vodafone, the service provider. The CPIO’s representative contended that they have no such authority under the TRAI Act. The appellant countered stating that under Section 12(1) of the TRAI Act read with Section 21 & 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the TCCCPR 2010 the information can be accessed by the TRAI. The CPIO’s representative requested that an opportunity should be given to him to make detailed submissions outlining the reasons as to why the information cannot be accessed.
Interim Decision notice dated 27/02/2014:
As requested by the CPIO it is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions from him demonstrating in detail his stand on the issue at hand, so that full facts are brought on record. Accordingly, the CPIO should furnish his submissions to the Commission (endorsing a copy to appellant) by 31/03/2014.
The hearing is adjourned for 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /04/2014 at 03.00 pm.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 17/04/2014:
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000692 The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr D P S Rajesh, CPIO, Shaji Abraham Joint Advisor and Sunil Gupta SRD.
The CPIO stated that they have already placed on record their written brief dated 25/03/2014(copy of which has been endorsed to the appellant) and will also be making some factual submissions for which time may be allowed. The appellant vide his communication dated 17/04/2014 has requested that the matter in hand should be clubbed with his other two appeals viz. (File. Nos.CIC/BS/A/2013/000389 & CIC/BS/A/2013/000421 scheduled for hearing on 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /04/2014) as the legal issue involved in all the three appeals is the same viz. whether the TRAI can access the information sought by him from the private body (viz. the Service Provider) under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act.
Interim decision notice dated 17/04/2014:
The respondents have sought time to place on record some factual submissions in addition to their written brief dated 25/03/2014, which largely deals with the legal position. The same is allowed. The appellant has requested for clubbing of all his three appeals (viz. File. Nos.CIC/BS/A/2013/000389, CIC/BS/A/2013/000421 & CIC/BS/A/2013/000692) as the legal issue involved in all the appeals is the same (viz. whether the TRAI can access the information sought by him under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act) and accordingly, the three appeals are directed to be clubbed together and heard on 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /04/2014.
The hearing is adjourned for 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /04/2014 at 02.30 PM
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /04/2014: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra; Respondent: Mr. D P S Rajesh CPIO, Mr. Sunil Gupta, SRO (QoS) & Mr. Tarun Kumar CAPIO; The appellant stated that he has lodged approximately 1970 complaints out of which effective action has been taken hardly on 100 complaints and he is now requesting for information on the following points:
(i) Registration of multiple DNC complaints against one/single Unsolicited Commercial Communication Complaint No. (hereinafter referred as UCC) and thus violating section 19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. (a)of TCCCPR,2010, because as per TCCCPR,2010 every DNC complaint should have to be registered separately by a new UCC Number even though more than 1 DNC is lodged on a single day.
(ii) Non registration of ALL the Do Not Call (hereinafter referred as DNC) Complaints and thus violating section 19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. (a) of TCCCPR,2010.
(iii) Not giving the feedback on ALL the DNC UCC No.'s ( within 7 days as well as even after 7 days, as mentioned in TCCCPR,2010) to subscriber on action taken by Vodafone/ initiating service provider on the DNC complaints lodged by subscriber and thus violating section 19(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority. , 19(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. & 19(11) of TCCCPR,2010
(iv)Gross violation of TCCCPR,2010 by Service Provider in terms of TCCCPR,2010 wherever used "DAYS' means Calendar Days whereas Vodafone is considering it as Working Days and thus delaying the whole process of feedback etc wherever and whenever( even in few cases only) they Vodafone feedback to it subscribers and thus violating section of TCCCPR,2010.
(v) Proper format of registering the DNC complaint through SMS at 1909 is made non- workable and thus violating section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. & 19(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party. of TCCCPR, 2010 DNC Complaints lodged through registered email ID of subscribers to the official email ID of Vodafone, are now not responded back and not registered by Vodafone.
(vi) Even after registering under DND still if the DND complaint is lodged through SMS on 1909 then message comes as (a) " Dear Customer, we regret your request could not be processed as DND service is currently not active. To activate Full DND sms START &1tSpace> 0 to 1909 "
(b)" Dear Customer, we regret your request could not be processed. The format is not as per TRAI guidelines. Correct format: Unsolicited Message,SMS/CALL Header,dd/mm/yy " Indicating that my Mobile is not registered under DND whereas my mobile no 9654462917 is regd since May, 2009.
(vii) No proper action taken by Vodafone / Initiating Service Provider on the Regd/ Unregistered Telemarketers as per TCCCPR,2010 and thus violating section 19(8)(a) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4; to 19(8)(d), 19(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority. , 19(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. and 19(11) of TCCCPR,2010 before 24/05/2013 as well as after 24/05/2013 when TCCCPR,2010 was amended and made more stricter but non-action / improper action of Vodafone has resulted in all such strict law made are reduced to a piece of paper. Objective of Vodafone is to dis-respect law of land i.e. TCCCPR,2010
(viii)Financial loss suffered by Govt of India due to improper action and rather no action taken by Vodafone / Initiating Service Provider on the Regd/ Unregistered Telemarketers by way of levying the heavy penalties( Rs 25000 to Rs 2.50 Lacs ) on such Regd/Unregd Telemarketers as per TCCCPR,2010 as well as per the Legal Agreement between Service Providers and Telemarketers, as directed by TRAI, and thus violating entire section 20 of TCCCPR,2010 and clauses 9,10,11, 12,13 & 14 of Mutual Agreement between the Access Provider and Telemarketer
(ix)Lots of complaints are rejected by Vodafone/Service provider by saying that “ Call Data Record not matched”, whereas I have written so many times that I still have the SMS/Call details available in my Mobile Phone memory and Vodafone can check the correctness of the DNC complaint lodged by me. But never ever Vodafone reverted to me on it but they keep on rejecting lots of DNC complaints on this ground and thus violating Section 19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. ( c) of TCCCPR,2010. (x) Lots of complaints are replied back by saying that “ Revert is awaited” But thereafter nothing is heard of from Vodafone and thus no action is taken on the DNC UCC Complaint agst the Regd/Unregd Telemarketer, by the Vodafone/Service Provider
(xi)Till 24/5/2013
From unregd telemarker- on 2nd Unsolicited communication from any unregd telemarketer the caller number would be disconnected and thereafter no telecom resources to that subscriber wd be allotted. From regd telemarker- There are financial penalties from Rs 25000 to Rs 2.50 lacs (till 6 violations) and thereafter to blacklist the telemarketer and not to allot any future telecom resources. (xii) After 24/05/2013 From unregd telemarker- Telecom resource to be disconnected even on 1st UCC
But it is not followed as I have a number of cases where numbers are still active
Interim Decision Notice:
The matter is adjourned for 26/05/2014 at 04.00 PM to enable the respondent to make their written submissions on the points made by the appellant as above. The CPIO’s reply should reach the Commission on or before 15/05/2014 by post and also by e-mail at rtiorganize@gmail.com. A copy of the submissions should be endorsed to the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 26/05/2014: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra; Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar, SRO (QoS) & Mr. Tarun Kumar SRO, CPIO/TRAI The Commission received written submissions dated 20/05/2014 from the Respondent, stating that the applicant through his RTI request has sought: • interpretation of the regulations made by TRAI, • to obtain information from the service provider, and • action against the service provider for alleged violation of the regulation.
The Respondent contended that they cannot call for such information from the service provider solely for providing information under the RTI Act. On the issue of seeking action against the service provider through RTI application, the Respondent has stated that RTI application can be used only for seeking information available on the records of the CPIO, hence the applicant has no right to seek action under the RTI Act.
The Respondent has narrated the detailed complaint handling mechanism of TRAI contending that complaints may be found to be invalid since messages sent through internet and/or internationally routed wherein the originating mobile number may be either unknown or invalid. Such complaints are not entered in the portal nor are the consumer/s informed about action taken on such complaints. Details of such complaints are known only to the service provider. The Respondent stated that probably because of this mechanism of handling complaints, the applicant feels that no action has been taken on all his complaints.
The TRAI has further submitted that searching and compiling any specific information available on the portal relating to complaints lodged by a particular consumer involves huge amount of time, effort and resources and requires the help of NIC which maintains the National Consumer Preference Register. Compilation of such information would amount to creation of information, as per the Respondent.
The Appellant vide his response dated 26.05.2014 highlighted the key points as hereunder:
i) The information sought by the applicant is a part of the information which the service provider (Vodafone) is under legal obligation to maintain as part of their records under TCCCP Regulations 2010.
ii) TRAI, the public authority is a regulator under TCCCPR 2010 and legally entitled to access the said information and records of the service provider in course of regulating the functions of the service provider.
iii) The Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the RTI Act grants supremacy to the RTI Act in relation to any other law (including the TRAI Act and the TCCCPR 2010) thereby implying that in case of any inconsistency with any other law in force, the provision of the RTI Act shall prevail.
iv) The applicant has placed reliance on a decision of the Commission in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001646/SG/14708 to substantiate his contention about the superseding powers of the RTI Act in relation to any other law. He has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of TRAI vs. Yashpal and sought to refer to his submissions dated 16.04.2014.
v) The applicant has discussed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay contending that the same paragraph relied upon by the Respondent manifestly sets apart the “information required to be maintained” by the public authority from the information that is not required to be maintained, holding the former accessible by the applicant. The Applicant has reiterated that the information sought by him is required to be maintained by the service provider under the TCCCPR 2010.
vi) The applicant has further stated that though the information sought by him may not be held by the TRAI, yet the TCCCPR, 2010 empowers the TRAI to access the said information from the service provider (Vodafone - a private body) thereby making the information under the control of TRAI.
vii) The applicant has also voiced his grievance for the delay and persistent denial of information rendering the TCCCPR, 2010 a useless legislation. He has prayed for punitive and disciplinary actions to be initiated against the public authority for violating provisions of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the CPIO put forth the limited submission stating that as a regulatory body, functions of TRAI are well defined in Section 11 of the TRAI Act 1997. They have pointed out that while the manpower of the TRAI is limited to 168 employees, the number of subscribers is in crores. The Respondents have argued that they lack the resources to deal with individual complaints/grievances and placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and the Delhi High Court in Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.
Decision Notice:
1. At the very outset, the Commission finds it relevant to revisit the contents of the RTI application in order to decide the nature of the information sought. The primary query of the applicant is to know the status of his complaints filed with VODAFONE Delhi under TCCCPR, 2010. The appropriate course of law has been followed by the applicant in lodging complaint before the service provider and upon non action on the part of the service provider, the applicant sought to know the Status/Action taken on all his complaints from the TRAI, which happens to be the sole regulatory authority in such cases. In response thereto, as is evident from the records of the case, no information has been provided by the Respondent. However, it is clear that the applicant has sought no interpretation of regulations.
2. The FAA in her order dated 03.01.2013 has stated that information sought by the applicant is not available with TRAI which may be correct, however, her argument that the information cannot be accessed remains to be examined.
3. To resolve the issue, it is imperative to find out the functions of the TRAI as defined in the TRAI Act. The Preamble of the TRAI Act reads as “…. An Act ….to provide for the establishment of (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal) to regulate the telecommunication services, adjudicate disputes, dispose of appeals and to protect the interests of service providers and consumers of the telecom sector………..”. The “Powers and Functions of the Authority” as defined in the Section 11 of the TRAI Act, 1997 inter alia states: “11. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 the functions of the Authority shall be to- …………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… i. protect the interest of the consumers of telecommunication service; j. monitor the quality of service and conduct the periodical survey of such provided by the service providers; .……………………………………………………………………. r. perform such other functions including such administrative and financial functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government or as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. ………………………………………………………………………..”
In this context it is pertinent to note that the TRAI Act specifically includes the transparency provisions and empowers the Authority to call upon any service provider at any time to furnish in writing such information or explanation relating to its affairs as it may consider necessary. Section 12 of the said Act reads as under:
“12. (1) Where the Authority considers it expedient so to do, it may, by order in writing- a. call upon any service provider at any time to furnish in writing such information or explanation relating to its affairs as the Authority may require; or b. appoint one or more persons to make an inquiry in relation to the affairs of any service provider; and c. direct any of its officers or employees to inspect the books of account or other documents of any service provider.”
Sub section 2 of Section 12 of the Act also provides that every person or body of persons who has/had dealings in the course of business with the service provider shall be bound to produce before the Authority making the inquiry, all such books of account or other documents in his custody or power relating to, or having a bearing on the subject-matter of such inquiry and also to furnish to the Authority with any such statement or information relating thereto, as the case may be, required of him, within such time as may be specified.
At this stage it is also pertinent to note that The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India issued The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulation, 2010 (6 of 2010) dated the 1st December, 2010 to provide an effective mechanism for curbing Unsolicited Commercial Communications (UCC). The said Regulations termed briefly as ‘TCCCPR 2010’ lays down the obligations of the access providers, powers of the TRAI and the consequences of failure of Access Providers to stop unsolicited commercial communications in the Regulations 20, 21 and 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. . Thus, it is abundantly clear that one of the key functions of the TRAI is to protect the interest of the consumers of the telecom sector. The consumer/subscriber forms the most crucial part of the entire system being the recipient of the telecom services and hence undoubtedly the interest of the consumers of the telecom sector cannot be underestimated and rather is the primary objective of the public authority. Other regulatory authorities like the RBI, SEBI, IRDA etc. also in discharge of their regulatory functions exercise the power of calling for records of various service providers in order to protect consumer interests and redress consumer grievances.
3. Without losing sight of the decisions cited by the Respondent, the Commission observes that the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of TRAI vs. Yashpal is clearly distinguishable from the present case in view of the nature of information sought in both the cases. While in the case of Yashpal, call/sms details pertaining to a Third party were sought, in the instant case the applicant has sought information about action taken/status on his own complaints lodged with the service provider regarding Unsolicited calls/sms. The other case cited by the public authority is of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay holding that the RTI Act does not cast any obligation upon the public authority to collect or collate such information which is not required to be maintained under any law or rules or regulations of the public authority and furnish it to the applicant. This issue has been discussed and amply clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decision dated 07.10.2013 in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others versus State of Kerala, relevant extracts whereof are as hereunder:
“52. Registrar of Cooperative Societies functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the Act. As a public authority, Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been conferred with lot of statutory powers under the respective Act under which he is functioning. He is also duty bound to comply with the obligations under the RTI Act and furnish information to a citizen under the RTI Act. Information which he is expected to provide is the information enumerated in Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act subject to the limitations provided under Section 8 of the Act………………………………………… …………………………………………. Consequently, apart from the information as is available to him, under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; , he can also gather those information from the Society, to the extent permitted by law. Registrar is also not obliged to disclose those information if those information fall under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the Act. ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………… But the demand should have statutory backing.
5. The information sought by the applicant regarding the status of his complaints with the Vodafone company regarding UCC, as discussed above, clearly falls within the regulatory powers exercised by the TRAI and thus there can be no reason which prevents the TRAI from gathering the information from the service provider and providing the same to the applicant. None of the arguments except that of bulky and voluminous information sought by applicant weighing down on limited manpower resources of the public authority therefore seems to hold any merit. The Respondent have pleaded that the TRAI has limited manpower of only 168 employees and lacks the wherewithal to handle individual complaints. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 05.02.2014 [WP (C) No. 845/2014 Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.] has held as hereunder:
“……..5. Keeping in view the width and amplitude of the information sought by the petitioner, it is apparent that the prayers in the writ petition are nothing short of an abuse of process of law and motivated if not an attempt to intimidate the respondent. In fact, even two days ago, this Court had dealt with a writ petition filed by the present petitioner being W.P.(C) 784/2014 wherein equally wide information had been asked for under the RTI Act.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still. The Supreme Court in CBSE vs. AdityaBandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, has held as under:-
62. When trying to ensure that the right to information does not conflict with several other public interests (which includes efficient operations of the Governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult to visualise and enumerate all types of information which require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest. The legislature has however made an attempt to do so. The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act, that is, Section 8 of the Freedom to Information Act, 2002. The courts and Information Commissions enforcing the provisions of the RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction, involving a reasonable and balanced approach which harmonises the two objects of the Act, while interpreting Section 8 and the other provisions of the Act.
63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of “information” and “right to information” under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide “advice” or “opinion” to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any “opinion” or “advice” to an applicant. The reference to “opinion” or “advice” in the definition of “information” in Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.
xxx xxx xxx
65. The power under Section 19(8) of the Act, however, does not extend to requiring a public authority to take any steps which are not required or contemplated to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act or to issue directions beyond the provisions of the Act. The power under Section 19(8) of the Act is intended to be used by the Commissions to ensure compliance with the Act, in particular ensure that every public authority maintains its records duly catalogued and indexed in the manner and in the form which facilitates the right to information and ensure that the records are computerised, as required under clause (a) of Section 4(1) of the Act; and to ensure that the information enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 4(1) of the Act are published and disseminated, and are periodically updated as provided in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act. If the “information” enumerated in clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act are effectively disseminated (by publications in print and on websites and other effective means), apart from providing transparency and accountability, citizens will be able to access relevant information and avoid unnecessary applications for information under the Act.
66. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of the RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information [that is, information other than those enumerated in Sections 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; and (c) of the Act], equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of Governments, etc.).
67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”………………………….”
6. The Commission observes that the DoT by the Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2014 has specified in the paragraph 6.) that “……District Consumer Dispute Redressal Fora are competent to deal with the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers….” The various decisions passed by the Consumer Fora penalizing the service providers on complaints and/grievances of the consumers also bears testimony to the fact that the appropriate forum for seeking redressal of consumer grievances is the Consumer Court. Recently, while deciding a case [CC No. 1265/2010 Jagdish Singh Chauhan vs. Idea Cellular Ltd.], a consumer Court in Delhi has directed Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) to change its rules for service providers to curb exploitation of consumers. The Court has observed in its decision dated 27.05.2014: “……..We are of the considered view that the TRAI has allowed itself to be played by the Association of superrich services providers, by emphasizing on considering their private interests and by ignoring the larger public interest and problem faced by subscribers which range from totally illiterate, semi literate, handicapped, blind etc. to highly busy and unconcerned class. The alleged excuse by service providers that prior taking consent will slow down growth of value added services is false and not tenable. It has nothing to do with consent. The growth is to be secured by legitimate methods of advertisements, free packages, and discounts if such value added services are opted etc. rather than by extortion methods. The TRAI has not applied its mind in balancing the interest of consumers. It is rather surprising to read the amended direction, which shows that the amendment is directed to service providers, with no reference to any hearing of the affected consumer, mentioned in the direction as if it was a matter between TRAI and service providers. The TRAI is established to safeguard consumer’s interest, and it has turned that obligation upside down, in the name of protecting consumer’s interest. The preamble of the TRAI Act, itself states that the objective of Consumer Protection…..”
……………………….. Issuing a number of directions to TRAI, New Delhi the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has also directed Idea Cellular Limited “….to pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant as compensation and direct it to deposit Rs.10 lakhs as punitive damages with PM Relief Fund, for ignoring the cause of complainant and interest of consumers and ignoring the existence of Consumer Court for no good reasons….”
7. Thus it becomes clear that under the RTI Act the Applicant, through the TRAI, can access the information on the action taken by the service provider on his complaint as available and existing with the service provider, but inaction on the part of the TRAI in redressal of his grievance can be agitated only before the appropriate forum viz. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
8. Before disposing of the Appeal, the Commission observes that while accessing or gathering information as sought by the Appellant in this case, is not opposed to the tenets of law, as emanates from the discussion above, the fact that providing bulky, voluminous or unnecessary and huge load of information will prove detrimental and hinder the normal course of activities of the Respondent. Be that as it may, the Commission holds that information regarding the complaints of the appellant as can be provided by the TRAI may be furnished to him. However discretion and judiciousness needs to be exercised in deciding the scope and ambit of the information to be furnished, considering the existence of a well established legal framework for redressal of grievances.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, New Delhi in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000389 + 000421 + 000692/5281