Central Information Commission
R. Hari Prasad vs Department Of Posts on 15 May, 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. (As Per Annexure)
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No.
R Hari Prasad ... अपीलकता/Appellant
...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of Post,
Chittoor ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/Complaint:
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No./Com Reply Appeal Order Appeal/Co
plaint mplaint
1. 123934 10.04.2024 08.05.2024 10.05.2024 08.06.2024 15.07.2024
2. 628540 10.04.2024 08.05.2024 10.05.2024 Not on 03.07.2024
record
3. 619741 10.04.2024 08.05.2024 Not on Not on 10.05.2024
record record
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal/complaint have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Date of Hearing: 07.05.2025
Date of Decision: 14.05.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Page 1 of 5
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/123934
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
From 1st January, 2023 to 10th April, 2024, kindly provide the information for the below points considering this data period.
a) List of all the posts, articles, speed posts, registered posts, notices, and ordinary posts addressed to me and sent to my residence address given below.
b) Provide tracking Id/Consignment/Ref number of all the articles.
c) Provide the Booked and Delivered dates for each of the article.
d) Confirm Delivery status for each article with a detailed message.
e) Please provide the sender's name and address, and origin of the booking 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Sir, the information requested by you is not readily available in material form as defined under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information cannot be provided."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 08.06.2024 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 15.07.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/628540 Complaint No. CIC/POSTS/C/2024/619741
2. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
From 1st January, 2023 to 10th April, 2024, kindly provide the information for the below points considering this data period.Page 2 of 5
a) List of all the posts, articles, speed posts, registered posts, notices, and ordinary posts addressed to me and sent to my residence address given below.
b) Provide tracking Id/Consignment/Ref number of all the articles.
c) Provide the Booked and Delivered dates for each of the article.
d) Confirm Delivery status for each article with a detailed message.
e) Please provide the sender's name and address, and origin of the booking.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Sir, the information requested by you is not readily available in material form as defined under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information cannot be provided."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2024. The FAA's order is on record of the Commission in another similar case, CIC/POSTS/A/2024/123934, as both cases pertain to the same RTI. 2.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 10.05.2024 and Second Appeal dated 03.07.2024. Hearing proceedings & Decision: -
3. The Appellant/Complainant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. K. Vidyapati, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The Appellant/Complainant submitted in all three cases CIC/POSTS/A/2024/123934, CIC/POSTS/A/2024/628540, CIC/POSTS/C/2024/619741 that the respondent had initially denied the requested information by invoking Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, claiming that the information was not available in a compiled form. However, after receiving the Commission's hearing notice, the respondent provided the information through a letter dated 25.04.2025. The appellant further alleged mala fide on the part of the respondent for withholding the information initially, despite being capable of furnishing it, and only supplying it after receiving the Commission's notice.
Page 3 of 55. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the department does not maintain individual records in the manner sought by the appellant/complainant in his RTI application. Accordingly, they invoked Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, stating that the requested information was not available in a compiled form. However, upon receiving the Commission's hearing notice, the department mobilized manpower, collected the information spanning a considerable period, and subsequently furnished it to the appellant/complainant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the cases, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent vide letter dated 08.05.2024 had responded appropriately in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant's attention is drawn towards the provisions laid down under Section 7(9) of the Act, the CPIO is required to provide only the information available on record and is not obligated to compile data in a manner that would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Nevertheless, the respondent made additional efforts by collecting the necessary information and furnishing it to the appellant/complainant vide letter dated 25.04.2025, upon receipt of the hearing notice. In appeal numbers CIC/POSTS/A/2024/123934 and CIC/POSTS/A/2024/628540, the information sought has already been provided; therefore, no further intervention by the Commission is warranted. However, the Commission emphasizes that while the respondent's initial reply was in line with the Act, they should maintain consistency in their responses and avoid altering their position subsequently. In view of the above, both appeals are dismissed.
7. In Complaint number CIC/POSTS/C/2024/619741, the Commission finds no mala fide intent on the part of the CPIO to withhold information or to infringe the complainant's right to information. Since the information sought pertained to a long duration and was not available in a compiled form, the respondent's initial denial was in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Subsequently, upon receiving the hearing notice, the respondent (present CPIO) collected the data and furnished the information in good faith. In absence of any mala fide intention on the part of CPIO, it would not be appropriate to initiate action against him under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.
Page 4 of 5Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 14.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Superintendent Of Post Offices, CPIO, Department Of Posts, Chittoor Division, Chittoor-517001 2 R Hari Prasad Annexure of Second Appeals/Complaint Sl. No. Second Appeal/Complaint No. 1 CIC/POSTS/A/2024/123934 2 CIC/POSTS/A/2024/628540 3 CIC/POSTS/C/2024/619741 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)