Central Information Commission
Subba Lakshmamma Akkana vs Department Of Posts on 31 May, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/640578-UM
Mrs. SUBBA LAKSHMAMMA AKKANA
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
OFFICE OF THE SR. SUPDT OF
POST OFFICES DEPARTMENT OF
POSTS CHITOOR DIVISION,
CHITOOR - 517001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.05.2021
Date of Decision : 31.05.2021
Date of RTI application 15.08.2018
CPIO's response 07.09.2018
Date of the First Appeal 18.04.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 13.05.2019
Second Appeal dated 15.05.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points pertaining to a registered letter no. RN691075135IN on 18/09/2017 from VENKATAGIRI TOWN-524132 to CHITTOOR- 517001 through Indian Postal Dept:
1. When and where Registered article/letter no: RN691075135IN has been delivered.
2. Who received the registered article/letter no: RN691075135IN at destination, his/her name and designation.Page 1 of 3
The CPIO/SPO, Deptt. Of Posts, Chittoor vide letter dated 07.09.2018 informed the appellant in respect to query no. 1 the article number RN691075135IN delivered on 20.09.2017 at collectors' office Chittoor. Further in respect to point no. 2 the article number RN691075135IN delivered at Collectors office Chittoor. Name and designation of the office is Tapal Clerk Collectors office Chittoor.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 13.05.2019 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Bala Naidu (Son of the Appellant), through AC; Respondent: Absent.
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. However, her son picked up the phone and informed the Commission that her mother is in hospital and he is not aware with the facts of the case hence the matter be decided based on the documents available on record. The Respondent also remained absent during the hearing. The contact details of the Respondent were not available on the record of the Commission for Audio Conferencing. Due to COVID-19 situation there was no other way to connect with the Respondent.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submission made by the Appellants son and also after perusing the documents available on record the Commission finds that an appropriate reply had already been furnished by the Respondent and hence no further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 31.05.2021 Page 2 of 3 Mrs. SUBBA LAKSHMAMMA AKKANA Page 3 of 3