19 number under interception could not be provided. This shows that records have not been maintained properly. (ii) In respect of 279 telephone numbers, although authority letters from various authorised agencies were available, these numbers have not been shown in lists supplied by MTNL showing interception of telephones to the corresponding period. This shows that lists supplied were incomplete. (iii) In respect of 133 cases, interception of the phones were done beyond the authorised part. The GM (O), MTNL in his explanation has said that this was done in good faith on oral requests of the representatives of the competent authorities and that instructions have now been issued that interception beyond authorised periods will be done only on receipt of written requests. (iv) In respect of 111 cases, interception of telephones have exceeded 180 days' period and no permission of Government for keeping the telephone under interception beyond 180 days was taken. (v) The files pertaining to interception have not been maintained properly. 22. Investigation has also revealed that various authorised agencies are not maintaining the files regarding interception of telephones properly. One agency is not maintaining even the logbooks of interception. The reasons for keeping a telephone number on watch have also not been maintained properly. The effectiveness of the results of observation have to be reported to the Government in quarterly returns which is also not being sent in time and does not contain all the relevant information. In the case of agencies other than IB, the returns are submitted to the MHA. The periodicity of maintenance of the records is not uniform. It has been found that whereas DRI keeps record