G.Raja v. The Commissioner

W.P.(MD) No.3694 of 2014 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.11.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.(MD) No.3694 of 2014 G.Raja ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Commissioner, Central Information Commission, August Kranthi Bhavan, 2nd Floor "B" Wing, New Bikaji Cara Palace, New Delhi-110 066.

2.The Chief General Manager, BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle, RTI Section, 80, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

3.The General Manager, BSNL, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 13.12.2013 by furnishing the tele-version of the conversation made between the Telephone No.8015728534 to the petitioner mobile No.9442960560 on 03.12.2012.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Paneer Selvam For Respondents : No Appearance (for R1 and R3) Mr.K.Govindarajan (for R2)

O R D E R

The representation of the petitioner on 17.04.2013 was to give the recording of a particular conversation from one particular telephone number to another particular telephone number, which took place on 03.12.2012. Recording of a conversation is not normally done by any authority unless, specifically authorised or done surreptitiously. The details of the call record that from a particular telephone number, whether a call was made or received to or from another number can be obtained from the nodal officer of a particular telephone agency. But even that particular record, would not be normally preserved for more than six months. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had given a representation within a period of six months, but the only detail which can be given to him is the fact that a telephone call was made or received to that particular telephone number. But the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD) No.3694 of 2014 actual conversation, can never be given unless specifically authorised to be recorded and even if it is recorded, it can only be given to a police agency and not to a private individual. Unfortunately, I am not able to accede to the request sought for by the petitioner. Since the writ petition is of the year 2014, I really agree that it suffers owing to delay by pendency in the High Court, but no further relief can be granted to the petitioner herein.

3.Recording the same, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sji Note:

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO:

1.The Commissioner, Central Information Commission, August Kranthi Bhavan, 2nd Floor "B" Wing, New Bikaji Cara Palace, New Delhi-110 066.

2.The Chief General Manager, BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle, RTI Section, 80, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

3.The General Manager, BSNL, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

+1 CC to M/s.V. PANNER SELVAM, Advocate ( SR-35951[F] dated 25/11/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.K. GOVINDARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-35588[F] dated 24/11/2021 ) W.P.(MD) No.3694 of 2014 23.11.2021 RD(06.12.2021) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2