Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Santanu Nandy vs Department Of Posts on 29 May, 2020

                                                CIC/POSTS/A/2018/161246



                               के ीयसूचनाआयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                           बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/161246

In the matter of:


Santanu Nandy                                           ... अपीलकता/Appellant




                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम



CPIO,                                               ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The Senior Manager,
Department of Posts,
Kolkata


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 17.05.2018           FA    : 02.08.2018           SA     : 09.10.2018
CPIO : 06.07.2018 &
                           FAO : 09.08.2018             Hearing : 22.05.2020
02.05.2020




                                                                     Page 1 of 5
                                                     CIC/POSTS/A/2018/161246



The following were present:

Appellant: Heard over the phone

Respondent: Shri Satyavir Singh Yadav, Sr. Manager, Department of Posts,
Kolkata, heard over the phone

                                     ORDER

Information Sought and Brief Facts:

The appellant sought information on 17.05.2018 on seven points, including, inter- alia;

a) Total no. of trees at Beleghata MMS, Kalighat MMS, Asansole MMS and Siliguri MMS as on date,

b) No. of trees that have been cut from the root level at the time of construction of Guard wall at Mail Motor Services, Siliguri during the financial year 2017-18,

c) Whether necessary permission/approval has been taken from the Forest Department of West Bengal Government.

And other related information.

The CPIO, vide letter dated 06.07.2018, provided point wise reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed The First Appeal dated 02.08.2018. FAA, vide order dated 09.08.2018, disposed of the RTI application stating that an appeal to the FAA for the second time cannot be entertained in respect of the same RTI application.

CIC/POSTS/A/2018/161246 Grounds for Second Appeal:

The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by respondent. He requested to the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that respondent vide letter dated 06.07.2018 has provided false information to the appellant. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information sought for.

The respondent submitted that at the time of responding to the RTI application, the information sought vide point no. 1 of RTI application was not available in material form. However, information, as available on record, was provided to the appellant on point nos. 2 - 7 of RTI application vide letter dated 06.07.2018. He further submitted that due information on point no. 1 of RTI application has now been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 02.05.2020. Hence, no further information remains to be provided by the respondent.

The appellant contested that no such letter dated 02.05.2020 has been received by him. He further submitted that the information provided on point no. 2 of RTI application is false, and he has documentary proof relating to the uprooting of tress at Mail Motor Services, Siliguri.

CIC/POSTS/A/2018/161246 Decision:

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that the information, as available on record, has been furnished to the appellant as sought vide point nos. 2-7 of the RTI application dated 17.05.2018, and no other information is available on the above stated points. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant.

The Commission, further, observes that as per the respondent information on point no. 1 was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 02.05.2020. However, the appellant claims to have not received the said letter. In view of this discrepancy, the Commission directs the respondent to resend the letter dated 02.05.2020 along with all necessary documents to the appellant via registered post. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.

Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 22.05.2020 Page 4 of 5 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/161246 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) cum Director of Postal Service (Hq.), The Chief Postmaster General, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata-700012

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Posts, The Senior Manager, Mail Motor Services 139, Beleghata Road, Kolkata 700015

3. Shri Santanu Nandy Page 5 of 5