Central Information Commission
Mrvijay Gupta vs Ministry Of Communications & ... on 16 September, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/002093/5998
16 September 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint:
Appellant : Mr. Vijay Gupta
No. 59/1, 3rd Floor,
1st "N" Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560010
Respondent : CPIO & Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Posts
Ghaziabad Division,
Ghaziabad - 201002
RTI application filed on : 02/05/2013
PIO replied on : 18/06/2013
First appeal filed on : 13/06/2013
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal dated : 10/08/2013
Information sought:-
The appellant wants to know why the following letters booked on 25/10/2012 by speed post were not delivered to the addressee and returned back.
(a) Article No.: EK 048715995IN
(b) Article No.: EK 048715899IN
(c) Article No.: EK 048715885IN Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Kewal Singh CPIO's representative M: 9868922425 The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing, however, he is absent. The CPIO's representative stated that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application dated 02/05/2013, as available on record, was provided vide letter dated 18/06/2013. He informed that the appellant had asked for reasons for non-delivery of three speed posts booked by him on 25/10/2012 and a report was called from the delivering post office who informed that the articles were returned as the address was not clear. He added that as the envelopes of the speed post were not provided by the appellant they could not enquire further in the matter. As regards the delay the CPIO's representative explained that the RTI application was received on 16/05/2013 and since a report had to be called from the concerned post office there was a Page 1 of 2 marginal delay of two days in sending the reply. He pleaded that there was no intent whatsoever to delay/deny any information to the appellant.
Decision notice:
From the CPIO's representative's submissions it appears that the information, as available on record, has been provided. The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to canvass his case/contest the CPIO's representative's submissions.
In the above circumstances we have no other option but to close the matter.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2