Central Information Commission
Narendra vs Department Of Posts on 29 May, 2020
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/164514
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/164514
In the matter of:
Narendra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The Senior Supdt. of Post,
Nagpur
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.03.2018 FA : 19.05.2018 SA : 25.10.2018
CPIO : 19.04.2018 FAO : 16.07.2018 Hearing : 21.05.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar Vinayak Langde, Assistant Supd. Of Post Office,
Nagpur, heard over the phone
Page 1 of 5
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/164514
ORDER
Information Sought and Brief Facts:
The appellant sought information regarding the procedure for filing of death claim of RD/Savings accounts in respect of his deceased father's deposits. The CPIO, vide letter dated 19.04.2018, denied information under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal dated 19.05.2018 which was disposed of by the FAA on 16.07.2018 upholding the CPIO's reply and also directed to CPIO (SSPOs, Nagpur City Division) to intimate the procedure of filling of death claim to the appellant and provide the relevant documents.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission for personal hearing and to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and also take appropriate legal action against the concerned authorities.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the respondent has malafidely denied him information under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that as per Section 11 so invoked by the respondent, the CPIO is required to issue a notice to the third party concerned seeking his consent with regard to disclosure of information. However, no such notice was ever issued by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide correct information sought for and Page 2 of 5 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/164514 take appropriate legal action against the CPIO for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act.
The respondent submitted that the appellant vide his RTI application has sought information regarding the deposits of his deceased father. However, he failed to mention any details pertaining to his father's account number. Further, since the information pertained to third party, thus, the same was denied to the appellant under Section 11 of the RTI Act. In response to a query, the respondent submitted that since the third party in the instant matter is the deceased, no notice could be issued.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, finds that the respondent has wrongly denied the information under Section 11 of the RTI Act, to the appellant. The Commission agrees with the respondent that the information sought by the appellant pertains to third party. However, the exemption in such cases has been afforded under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 11 on the other hand is triggered when the CPIO intends to disclose such third party information to the appellant. The Commission notes that the then CPIO has, without application of mind, quoted Section 11 merely for the purpose of denying information to the appellant. The Commission, further, notes that although Section 11 was invoked by the CPIO, no notice under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act was served on the third party concerned. It is a grave displeasure to observe that the CPIO in the present matter is highly ignorant of law, and has been considering the deceased to be a third party. Such conduct of the CPIO is highly regretted. The principle Ignorantia juris non excusat perfectly applies to the present matter. In view of this, the Commission directs the Page 3 of 5 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/164514 Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the then CPIO, Office of the Senior Supdt. of Post, Nagpur for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
The Commission, further, directs the present CPIO, Office of the Senior Supdt. of Post, Nagpur to follow the procedure for supplying the third party information as laid down under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act by seeking the opinion of the third party concerned and thereafter take a decision regarding disclosure of information. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 21.05.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 4 of 5 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/164514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Director of Postal Services, The Postmaster General, Nagpur Region, Nagpur - 440 010
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) The Senior Supdt. of Post, Department of Posts, Nagpur City DN.
Nagpur - 440 001
3. Shri Narendra Page 5 of 5