Central Information Commission
Rajkumar Aland vs Department Of Posts on 27 January, 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/2023/149283
Rajkumar Aland ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Posts,
Kalaburagi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.03.2023 FA : 07.09.2023 SA : 16.12.2023
CPIO : 05.04.2023 FAO : 14.09.2023 Hearing : 24.01.2025
Date of Decision: 27.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"The DDLR Kalaburagi office dispatched a letter to the applicant on 07/02/2023. For your reference dispatch receipt copy along with tracking details enclosed. Till date the letter has not been delivered to the applicant. In this connection furnish the following information along with relevant certified documents, papers etc.:
(i) Provide current status of the above-mentioned post.
(ii) Provide estimated date of delivery of the post.Page 1 of 4
(iii) Provide reasons recorded on record for such inordinate delay for delivering the post article.
(iv) In-case the post was delivered, provide name of the postman who delivered the same.
(v) Provide article delivered proof details."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. "Delivered on 09.02.2023.
ii. Available in India post website
iii. Not applicable
iv. Available on delivery manifest enclosed
v. Delivery manifest enclosed"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 14.09.2023 stated that:
"On scrutiny of appeal, it is noticed that the appeal is preferred after 2 months of receipt of reply from CPIO/SPOs Kalaburagi and no reasons for delay is also mentioned. In accordance with Sec 19 (1) of RTI Act, 2005, if an appellant is aggrieved by a decision of CPIO, an appeal may be preferred within 30 days from receipt of reply from CPIO. As such, the appeal is not considered and rejected as time barred."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.12.2023.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, S N Haldigol, SPO & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant upon a query from the Commission about having filed any prayer for condonation of delay before the FAA stated in the affirmative that he has filed the prayer, and it is available as Annexure 6 in the Second Appeal. Since a preliminary perusal of the second appeal was already carried out by the bench, it was informed to the Appellant that Page 2 of 4 there is no such mention of a delay condonation prayer in the memo or contents of the First Appeal or any mention of there being any annexure to the First Appeal. Moreover, the FAA having categorically recorded that the Appellant has not stated any reasons for delay, it was sternly opined by the bench that the prayer condonation annexed with the second appeal as a separate sheet of paper lacked tenacity. However, the Appellant sought to challenge the observations of the bench and burst into frenzied arguments insisting that the prayer for condonation of delay is available in the records.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the FAA has aptly dismissed the First Appeal as time-barred for want of any reasons for condonation of delay. Moreover, even if a liberal view is taken in the matter considering the insistence of the Appellant that he indeed filed the prayer for condonation of delay before the FAA, the fact remains that the reason tendered therein is that he had misplaced the documents, which in itself is a feeble excuse and lacks any substance. Similarly, if the CPIO's reply were to be considered on merits, the fact remains that the same is appropriate in all respects as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
9. With the above observations, the Appeal is dismissed not maintainable.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 27.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o the Supdt. of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Kalaburagi Division, Kalaburagi - 585101
2. Rajkumar Aland Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)