Central Information Commission
Chetan Gupta vs Department Of Posts on 13 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 Nos. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/618780 +
CIC/POSTS/A/2023/618778
Chetan Gupta ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Posts,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
RTI : 20.11.2022 &
FA : 21.12.2022 SA : 12.04.2023
23.11.2022
CPIO : 20.12.2022 FAO : 19.01.2023 Hearing : 06.12.2024
Note: The above referred appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
the same subject matter and nature of RTI queries.
Date of Decision: 10.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/618780
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.11.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"The account holder started 5 year RD account of 5000 INR monthly deposit on 24th July 2017.Page 1 of 8
The entire amount of 60,000 INR deposited before the beginning of next year cycle i.e. before 24th July of every year.
60,000 deposited continuously for 3 consecutive years, i.e. 2017, 2018 and 2019.
After 3rd deposit, the account holder passed away on 27th July 2019 and no further deposits were made.
Calculate and share the final amount (principal plus interest, excluding rebate received on advance deposit for entire year) nominee is supposed to receive in below cases:
(i) Amount is claimed at maturity, i.e. on 24th July 2022.
(ii) Amount is prematurely withdrawn, request placed on 29th October 2021.
Please share a clear amount for both the cases, copy of passbook is attached in supporting document section for your reference."
1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Information sought for is redressal of grievance. As per the decision of CIC vide no. CIC/BS/A/2013/002857/6334 dated 12.11.2014 in the case of Sh. Pawan Kr Sharma Vs CPIO/Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Delhi North Division, Delhi-110054 Elciting answers to queries, redressal of grievance, reasons for non-compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of RTI Act-2005.
Although your matter is being treated as a grievance & same is under process in concerned branch of the division."
1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 19.01.2023 directed the CPIO to treat the matter as a grievance and resolve it at the earliest.
1.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.04.2023.
Page 2 of 8Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/618778
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"My father had an RD account at the Partap Market post office, when I visited the office to enquire for the account the officer behaved rudely with me and told me that I am not entitled for any interest after the death of my father and therefore I had to prematurely withdraw the RD (Account Number: ******8654) Later when visited to Lodhi Road for some other work I was told by a personnel at Lodhi road post office that the interests paid even after the death of account holder and after submitting 2 written complaint, the post office will calculate the interest to be paid and if some mismatch happens then the remaining amount will be paid I first filed this case on 25th April 2022 by submitting a written complaint at Lodhi Road post office to Shipra Mehta, Shipra Mehta is in charge of such cases and she did nothing to resolve the complaint, instead of accepting the wrong doing by the Partap Market officer Romila, she told me it is my fault that I did not take action earlier and told me to not file any complaint.
Comment is the job of post office to calculate interest and officers must be aware of correct rules and regulations, lam not supposed to know of such policies. So all the responsibility lies on the post office for this sue for misguiding me and making me doing premature withdrawal I called post office several times enquiring the status on my complaint but no concrete answer about resolution by Shipra Mehta, she said we will receive the letter but nothings received...Page 3 of 8
Action required: Calculation of appropriate interest to be done on the RD and the correct interest must be paid on the amount deposited till end of October 2021 along with 1 year interest on this amount due to delay in resolution of complaint" etc. 2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Information sought for is redressal of grievance. As per the decision of CIC vide no. CIC/BS/A/2013/002857/6334 dated 12.11.2014 in the case of Sh. Pawan Kr Sharma Vs CPIO/Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Delhi North Division, Delhi-110054 Elciting answers to queries, redressal of grievance, reasons for non-compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of RTI Act-2005.
Although your matter is being treated as a grievance & same is under process in concerned branch of the division."
2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 19.01.2023 directed the CPIO to treat the matter as a grievance and resolve it at the earliest.
2.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.04.2023.
3. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Tara Tyagi, SSPO & CPIO attended the hearing in person.
4. The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application and urged for relief to be ordered as sought for therein. The Commission advised the Appellant that what he has sought for is not information as envisaged under the RTI Act and that he ought to pursue the grievance before the appropriate forum.
5. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant's grievance was forwarded to the concerned branch.
6. The Commission in furtherance of the hearing proceedings observes that the Appellant has demanded for certain administrative and executive action to be initiated by Page 4 of 8 the Respondent which is not an issue that is amenable to the mandate 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
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) Page 5 of 8 Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the Page 6 of 8 domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. Furthermore, the Appellant is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
8. Having observed as above, no relief or action is warranted in the matter.
Page 7 of 89. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 10.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, CPIO, Department Of Posts, New Delhi South Division, Delhi-110003
2. Chetan Gupta Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)