Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

K. Ranganathan vs Department Of Posts on 28 January, 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. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/133992

K. Ranganathan                                                  ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
CPIO: Department Of Posts,
Tiruvannamalai                                            ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 11.03.2023              FA       : 22.06.2023             SA     : 05.08.2023

CPIO : 06.04.2023             FAO : 21.07.2023                  Hearing : 17.01.2025


Date of Decision: 28.01.2025
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) DPC Register pertaining to the selection of Group D [from EDA to Group D), pertaining to the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. [Tiruvannamalai Division].

(ii) DPC minutes for the Recruitment of Group D [from EDA to Group D} pertaining to the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. [Tiruvannamalai Division].

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"As per DOPT O. M. No. 11/2/2008-IR dated 10.07.2008 and O. M. No. 1/18/ 2011-IR dated 16.09.2011, the CPIO does not require deduce information from various materials/does not cast an obligation to collect or collate such non available information sought for in the particular format by the applicant. Since the information sought for by the applicant is not available in any material form in respect of this division and the information could not be furnished."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.07.2023 observed as under: -

"The RTI reply was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 06.04.2023 which was delivered to the appellant on 11.04.2023. The appellant has filed the appeal dated 22.06.2023. after 70 days from the date of receipt of RTI reply, exceeding the normal time limit of 30 days for filing the first appeal. The appellant has neither provided sufficient grounds for delay nor submitted any application for condonation of delay for belated filing of appeal. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, the appeal is rejected as time barred."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.08.2023.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Rangarajan, Superintendent attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant reiterated the background of the case and submitted that an improper reply has been furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the record/documents sought pertain to the year of 1992 to 1994 and the same is preserved for 5 years only, hence, the information sought is not available in their office records.

However, earlier, copies of the documents as sought in the RTI application has already been provided to the appellant in the year 2010.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records condones the delay by the appellant in filing the first appeal and observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application vide letter dated 06.04.2023. The perusal of records further reveals that the documents sought have been weeded out as per the record retention policy of the respondent authority, hence not available with the respondent. In this regard, the appellant's attention is drawn towards the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the case of "The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011], dated 04.12.2024. The following was thus held:

"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."

9. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 28.01.2025 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Supdt., & CPIO, Department Of Posts, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai-606601

2. K. Ranganathan Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)