Central Information Commission
Ratnakar Sethy vs Department Of Posts on 21 March, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/139935
CIC/POSTS/A/2023/143605
Ratnakar Sethy ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of Post
Cuttack ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 139935 05.04.2023 27.04.2023 03.05.2023 17.07.2023 24.07.2023
2. 143605 09.03.2023 06.04.2023 03.05.2023 26.06.2023 01.08.2023
Note: The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the
same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 23.01.2025
Date of Decision: 21.03.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/139935
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
I. "A. A xerox copy of 6 KVP (Kisan Vikas Patra) Account (List attached in RTI) Page 1 of 7 B. Maturity date 26.10.2012 What is the maturity value of the above IVP C. Base value of the above also.
II. List of 14 KVP account numbers mentioned in tabular foam in RTI.
A. Base value of the above also.
B. maturity value of the above C. Mention the type of the above list, NAC, KVP, IVP III. List of 18 KVP account numbers mentioned in tabular foam in RTI.
A. Base value of the above also.
B. maturity value of the above C. Mention the type of the above list, NAC, KVP, IVP"
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Inviting a kind reference to your RTI application as cited above, this is to intimate that the information as sought for cannot be supplied, as the copies of the certificates, the information regarding which has been sought for, has not been supplied by you which is necessary to ascertain as to whether you are the holder of the certificates. As such the information is exempted from disclosure as per the provisions contained under Sec 8 1(e) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2023 stating that consent of his wife was not taken under Section 11 and as such he is providing the letter of consent of his wife. The FAA vide order dated 17.07.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.07.2023 stating the same grounds as that of the First Appeal as mentioned above.
Page 2 of 7Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/143605
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.03.2023 seeking copies of 33 number of KVPs in his name; his wife's name & in his son's name." 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"With reference to the above mentioned subject, this is to intimate that the information as sought for is not available in material form. Hence the same cannot be supplied."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 26.06.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 01.08.2023 stating inter alia as under:
"Sir, In inviting subject cited above i Sri Ratnakar Shetty Intimate you that I have applied some Information on dated 05.04.2023, 12.04.2023 but the senior superintendent of Cuttack division not giving me the information by showing different unnecessary causes. Then I file appeal at first appellate authority the appellate authority also agreed with the view of senior superintend, But in this place I want to inform you that I am eligible to get the information as I applied on dated 05.04.2023 because all the fixed deposits are in my name and my wife's name the proofs are as follows
1. The senior superintend Cuttack division denied to give my information, he says that "as the copy of the certificates, the Information regarding which has been sought for, has not been supplied by you which is necessary to ascertain as to whether you are the holder of the certificates" in this place I want to inform you that the certificate cannot be supplied because all are closed and deposited at the time of closer, in letter no 19-20 dated 19.08.2022 the senior superintend gave me the statement of my savings account Page 3 of 7 which clearly reflects the closer procedure of 14 no's of fixed deposit on 12.12.2018, 18 no's of fixed deposit on 29.06.2016, which I applied to get the base value. maturity value and type of fixed deposit on dated 05.04.2023 but without verifying the no. of the fixed deposit mentioned in the application the senior superintend denied to give the information by showing unnecessary causes copy of the letter no 19-20 dated 19.08.2022 of senior superintend Cuttack enclosed in annexure-8.
2. 8 no.of IVP which are in the name of my wife Smt Bhagyalata Sethy has been matured on dated 26.10.2012 vide cheque no 331983 dated 26.10.2012 copy of the cheque enclosed in annexure-C
3. The first appellate authority issued orders without fixing the hearing date and not verifying the document.
4. The matter is also intimated to the chief post master general several times."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
3. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Ratikant Swain, SSPO & CPIO, O/o CPMG, Odisha Circle attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The arguments and statements made by the Appellant & the Respondent during the hearing were largely a reiteration of the grounds of First & Second Appeal and the CPIO's replies already available on record. An additional submission was tendered by the CPIO in Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/143605 wherein it was now stated that- "The certificates are forwarded to Account Office i.e. Cuttack GPO after discharge and thereafter to 0/o the DA(P), Cuttack with accounts return. Since the certificates were neither available at Sub Post Offices not at Cuttack GPO, it was replied that the information is not available in material form vide this office letter of even no. dated 06.04.2023. Also, the First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the CPIO vide letter no. PG/RTI/Appeal-49(1)/2023 dated 26.06.2023 as the information is not available in material form with the CPIO." The discussion during the hearing revolved Page 4 of 7 around the fact that cumulatively both the cases seek information under various subject heads for more than 60 accounts including copies of the umpteen number of KVPs. Now, while the Respondent continued to harp on the Appellant not providing copies of the certificates to enable them to make available such information that is feasible to be provided, the Appellant insisted on not being able to provide the copies thereof and continued to request for relief to be ordered in both the matter(s). The Respondent sought to point out that most of these KVPs had already matured and closed long ago as has been already even admitted by the Appellant in the grounds of the second appeal viz. Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/143605, which also means that these are very old records. Upon affording more than adequate time to the parties to present their arguments causing only more confusion and incoherence, it was opined by the Commission that the number of accounts being referred to and the details being sought for is clearly humungous in nature and involves the complexities of third-party privacy rights (irrespective of these third parties being the wife or son of the Appellant) as well as the absurdity of the Appellant in asking for such details of his already closed accounts for which he is himself is not being able to produce any certificate. Having noted that the hearing proceeding was digressing into a mere exchange of inconclusive and indeterminate arguments amongst the parties, the hearing was concluded.
5. The Commission in furtherance of the hearing proceedings observes that the nature and manner in which the Appellant has sought for information in both cases is a clear case of impractical demand for information. Moreover, the overlapping concerns of third-party stake; CPIO's affirmation about not maintaining the information in compiled form and any order for disclosure entailing disproportionate diversion of resources as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act leave for no scope of any relief to be ordered in the matter.
6. In the facts of the instant case, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'37. 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 Page 5 of 7 fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of 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 section 4(1)(b) 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.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under 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 counter-productive 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, tranquility, 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 prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.'
9. Having observed as above, no action warranted in the matter.
10. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 21.03.2025 Page 6 of 7 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices, Sr. Supdt., & CPIO, Department Of Posts, Cuttack City Division, Cuttack-753001
2. Ratnakar Shetty Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)