Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shankar G vs Department Of Posts on 21 August, 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/2024/620437

Shankar G                                                        ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
CPIO: Department of Post,
Tiruvannamalai                                             ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 17.03.2024               FA       : 28.03.2024             SA     : Nil.

CPIO : 22.03.2024              FAO : 25.04.2024                  Hearing : 04.08.2025


Date of Decision: 20.08.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Sir I am the sb account holder of Sri Ramanashramampost office Tiruvannamalai district Tamil Nadu South India 606603 my sb account passbook has been lost and account number also lost I need the following information If my account is running mean how to get passbook from post office If my account is closed mean how to get my account closure statement.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"The information sought for is of query in nature. The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority and any obligation to answer queries as per CIC decision in file No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006.

However, it is intimated that duplicate passbook/statement of account can be obtained on submission of application with required mandatory details along with payment of required fees.

Copy of application for issuing of duplicate passbook is enclosed herewith for reference.

Account number can be obtained from post office if Aadhar number & Mobile number of the depositor was already linked to the account."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

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

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

6. The appellant contended that the respondent has inadequately denied the information sought through the instant RTI application. Moreover, the respondent did not mention the exact amount in his reply.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that through the queries raised in the RTI application the appellant was seeking clarification regarding passbook and account closure statement, which were not covered within the definition of Page 2 of 4 "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. However, they had advised the appellant to submit mandatory fee to get duplicate passbook. A written submission dated Nil of the respondent has been taken on record.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the instant RTI Application does not seek information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and yet the CPIO has provided a clarification in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)

9. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. 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: 20.08.2025 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, Supdt., & CPIO, Department Of Posts, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai-606601 2 Shankar G Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)