Central Information Commission
Sunil Kumar Kanaujia vs Department Of Posts on 5 October, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/POSTS/A/2022/147311
Sunil Kumar Kanaujia .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Manager-(MMS-Kanpur), Department of Posts-India,
Mail Motor Services, Kanpur Circle,
Kanpur-208001 (Uttar Pradesh).
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Postmaster General-(Staff), Office of
the Postmaster General, Department of Posts-India,
Kanpur Circle, Kanpur-208001 (Uttar Pradesh).
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.07.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 12.08.2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 04.10.2022
Date of Hearing : 05.10.2023
Date of Decision : 05.10.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information: Page 1 of 4
• PIO vide letter dated 10.08.2022 denied disclosure of information sought under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act.
• Dissatisfied with no response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 12.08.2022.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: Mr. Sushanr Singh, Asst. Manager, MMS Kanpur The Appellant stated that he had sought information relating contract entered between the department of post and the contractor with respect to engagement of outsourced drivers in the MMS, Kanpur. He stated that the PIO has wrongly denied information as sought in the instant RTI Application.Page 2 of 4
The Respondent stated that the information sought by the Appellant has been denied vide letter dated 10.08.2022 under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act. He stated that the no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant for disclosure of information sought. He stated that the commercial confidence of the contractor would be affected by the disclosure of information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that the PIO has not been able to justify the denial of information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, the Commission deems it fit to direct concerned PIO, to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised fresh point-wise reply, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the PIO should procure and provide the same to the Appellant. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the Appellant and same must be redacted as per Section 10 of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4