Central Information Commission
Radha Krishna vs Department Of Posts on 17 May, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/113877-UM+
CIC/ POSTS/A/2018/172375-UM
1. Mr. Radha Krishna
2. Mr. Arpit Agarwal
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
O/o Supdt of Post Offices,
Dept. Of Post, Kanpur (M) DN,
Kanpur - 208001, Uttar Pradesh
प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.05.2021
Date of Decision : 11.05.2021
ORDER
RTI I: CIC/ POSTS/A/2019/113877 Date of RTI application 11-12-2018 CPIO's response 11-01-2019 Date of the First Appeal 02-02-2019 First Appellate Authority's response Not legible Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 27.03.2019 Page 1 of 4 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points which areas under: -
1. Certified legible photocopy of the engagement file of the GDS BPM Mauha Mahoi (Mangalpur) Kanpur Dehat covering only period of the engagement file from issuance of advertisement to the issuance of the termination order dated 06.05.2016. Application of candidates supply only upto Sl. No. 1 to the applicant application. Remaining no need.
2. Certified photocopy of the PVR, Health certificate & under taken for source of income and providing the space for Post office pertaining to candidate noted at Sl. No. 1 & applicant only.
3. Intimate whether Sri Shubham Saxena candidate noted at Sl. No. 1 of tabulation chart dated 06.03.2013 completes the order conditioned as 12/2001-GDS dated 17.09.2013.
(Page 25 of RA-2 of CA filed by the Department in Oa No. 735 of 2016) (copy enclosed for ready reference).
4. Certified full photocopies of correspondence for providing the space for post office in case of candidate noted at Sl. No. 1 with photocopy, if supplied by candidate noted at Sl. No. 1 of tabulation chart of BO Mauha Mahoi dated 06.03.2013.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 11.01.2019 informed the Appellant on points 1 and 3 that the information sought cannot be provided at this stage and denied under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and for point No. 2 stated that the information (containing 7 pages) will be provided after payment of Rs. 14/- and on point no. 4, informed that the information is not available. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA is not legible. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide the requisite information.
RTI II: CIC/ POSTS/A/2018/172375
Date of RTI application 10-09-2018
CPIO's response 03-10-2018
Date of the First Appeal 18-10-2018
First Appellate Authority's response 15-11-2018
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.12.2018
Page 2 of 4
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points which are as under:-
1. Certified legible photocopy of the engagement file of the GDS BPM Osiya Safipur) Unnao covering only period of the engagement file from issuance of advertisement to the issuance of the termination order dated 30.05.2016. Application of candidates supply only upto Sl. No. 1 to the applicant application. Remaining no need.
2. Certified photocopy of the PVR, Health Certificate & under taken for source of income pertaining to applicant only.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 03.10.2018 informed the Appellant that the matter is pending before the High Court of Lucknow hence it was denied as per rule 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 15.11.2018, upheld the reply of the CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide the requisite information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellants: Mr. Radha Krishna and Mr. Arpit Agarwal through TC; Respondent: Mr. Chandra Prakash, ASPO through through TC;
The Appellants reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and submitted that the information sought regardingthe engagement files of the GDS BPM was wrongly denied to them. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the replies of the CPIO / FAA and submitted that a suitable reply has been furnished to the Appellants as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent further informed they can furnish the information sought by the Appellants for point 01 that since the litigation in the matter had concluded.Page 3 of 4
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by all the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish a revised reply on point no. 1 of the RTI applications to the Appellants by providing a copy of the engagement files as sought in the RTI applications in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 / RTI Rules, 2012 after receiving the requisite fee as a photocopying charge, within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. A letter requesting the Appellants to deposit the requisite fee as per Rules should be sent within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचनाआयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितएवंसत्यापितप्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] ददनांक / Date: 11.05.2021
1. Mr. Radha Krishna
2. Mr. Arpit Agarwal Page 4 of 4