1. Shri. P.K. Jain had challenged the decision of the Commission (Decision No.1084/IC(A)/2007 dated July 27, 2007) before the High Court (Jabalpur) on the ground that he was a third party and that he was not heard in the matter.
2. The High Court of Jabalpur has, therefore, directed the Commission as under:- The Central Information Commission is directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Shri. P.K. Jain (third party). (Ref. WP No.10414 2007 dated 14/8/2007).
3. In compliance with the Order of the Court, notices for hearing were issued by the Commission vide letter dated November 27, 2007 to the appellant, CPIO and the Appellate Authority of BSNL and Shri. P.K. Jain (third party), and the case was heard on 20/12/2007.
4. The appellant, Smt. Sunita Jain and the third party, Shri. P.K. Jain, respectively, were represented through their Counsels: Shri. N.K. Tripathi, Advocate and Shri. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. No one was, however, present on behalf of the respondent.
5. The first hearing in the case was conducted on 27/7/2007, in which no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and respondent. Significantly, Shri. Naresh Kumar Gaur, Advocate, Counsel for the third party Shri. P.K. Jain was present, though he was not a party in the case. The Counsel for the third party made his oral and written submission in the first hearing held on 27/7/2007. This is a matter of evidence, which may be verified from the records of the Commission. It is, therefore, untrue to say that the third party was not heard before the passage of decision no.1084/IC(A)/2007 which has been set aside by the Honble High Court, Jabalpur, on the basis of misleading information to the Court.
6. During the second hearing on 20/12/2007, the Counsel for the third party, Shri P.K. Jain stated that he has not received the notice for hearing dated November 27, 2007 issued by the Commission. He contented that he came to know of the hearing in the matter from some other reliable sources. He, however, made his oral and written submission and contented that the information sought for by the appellant, Mrs. Sunita Jain, should be denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
7. The Counsel for Mrs. Jain stated that u/s 4(1)(b)(x) of the Act, the public authority is required to disclose not only the details of duties and responsibilities of its employees but also the salaries and wages paid to the employees. Such information should be put in public domain
8. The Counsels for the third party pleaded that the disclosure of information sought would not serve any public interest. Hence, it should not be revealed to the appellant, who has a family dispute with the third party. Decision:
9. The public authorities are expected to adhere to the principle of maximum disclosure in order to ensure transparency and accountability in carrying out their obligatory responsibilities. Accordingly, it is mandated u/s 4(1)(b)(x) of the Act, that every public authority shall publish within 120 days from the enactment of the Act the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations. Accordingly, the respondent should have published the wages and salaries paid to each of its employees. Had these been done by the respondent to comply with the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act, the appellant would not have moved her application under the RTI Act. The respondent is, therefore, held responsible for withholding the information which has unduly led to unnecessary putting up of application for information and thus increasing the cost of providing information.
10. The CPIO, on behalf of the respondent, should, therefore, explain as to why a suitable compensation of Rs.25,000/- should not be awarded to the appellant, Smt. Sunita Jain, u/s 19(8)(b) for detriment suffered by her for seeking information and unnecessary delay in providing the information, including non compliance of the provision of 4(1) of the Act. He should submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 21st January 2008 at 11.00 A.M.
11. Through his Counsel, Shri Naresh Kumar Gaur, the third party (Shri Jain) was duly heard in the matter during the first hearing on 27.7.2007, though the notice for hearing was not issued to him as he was not a party in the case. Yet, he has wrongly complained before the Court that he was not heard. Unfortunately, Shri. Jain has misled the High Court, Jabalpur, on the issue that he was not heard in the matter.
12. The information sought for was expected to be put in the public domain as per the provisions of the RTI Act u/s 4(1). In view of the applicability of section 4(1)(b)(x) of the Act, the contention of the third party that the information asked for should be denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, is untenable. The Commissions Decision No.1084/IC(A)/2007 dated July 27, 2007 should, therefore, be complied with without further delay.
13. The Chairman, BSNL, is directed to ensure compliance of section 4(1) of the Act, in letter and spirit, so as to fulfill the mandatory requirements for ensuring transparency in the functioning of the respondent.
14. The case is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Prof. M.M. Ansari) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy: (L.C. Singhi) Additional Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Smt. Sunita Jain, H-30, Shantivihar Colony, Makronia, Sagar Distt. 470
004.
2. Shri. B. Praveen Kumar, DGM (Admn.) & CPIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Office of the CGMM, WTR, 12th floor, Telephone House, Prabhadevi, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028.
3. Shri. Chandra Prakash, CGMM and Appellate Authority, BSNL, WTR, 12th Floor Telephone House MTNL Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028.
4. The Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, WTR, 12th Floor,Telephone House MTNL Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028.
5. Shri. Pawan Kumar Jain, Director Telecom, WTR, Transmission Building, BSNL, CTO Compound, Jabalpur (M.P.)
Comments