Central Information Commission
R Kameswara Babu vs Department Of Posts on 27 September, 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 संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/POSTS/A/2020/112276-UM
Mr. R Kameswara Babu
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Superintendent of Post
Department of Posts, Tenali
Dn, Tenali-522201
....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.09.2021
Date of Decision : 27.09.2021
Date of RTI application 11.12.2019
CPIO's response 07.01.2020
Date of the First Appeal 13.01.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 02.03.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.03.2020
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points:
Page 1 of 3The CPIO vide letter dated 07.01.2020 denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 02.03.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide the information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri R.K Babu present through AC, Respondent: Shri. J Srinivasullu, SPO, Tenali, present through AC.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding name & designation of the officials representing the case filed by him in the Consumer Forum along with the rules of representation etc. The Appellant further stated that no correct reply has been furnished by the Respondent. The Appellant added that the Respondent authority has indulged in wasteful expenditure of public money while dealing with the case filed by him in the Consumer Forum. The Appellant requested the Commission direct to the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 07.01.2020 they had furnished a reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act. When queried the Respondent submitted that they had not assigned any permanent officer for the representing the case. Instead, he said, the said representation was made by the officials available on a particular day.Page 2 of 3
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 20.09.2021 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that as the public money is involved in the case involved the information sought stands in the domain of larger public interest and hence the name and designation of the officials representing the Respondent authority could be provided in the present case. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a precise and an updated revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) ू नाआयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 27.09.2021 Page 3 of 3