Central Information Commission
Mrtejinder Singh vs Department Of Posts on 28 January, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2015/000096/9601
28 January 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Tejinder Singh,
H. No - S-5/5, Garden Colony,
Mission Road, Pathankot - 145001,
Punjab.
Respondent : CPIO / Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Post
O/o Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
New Delhi South West Postal Division,
New Delhi - 110021
RTI application filed on : 22/10/2014
PIO replied on : 18/11/2014
First appeal filed on : 19/11/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 03/12/2014
Second Appeal received on : 27/12/2014
Information sought:
The appellant had sought following information:
1- Why no response is given to the complaint No. 10005919815 dated 14/10/2014, 15/10/2014, 16/10/2014, 18/10/2014, 20/10/2014 and 22/10/2014. 2- Where is the speed post No. EP274557905IN dated 26/06/2014 gone. 3- Why no response is given to the emails sent at [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] number of times since the complaint dated 14/10/2014.
4- For non settled complaints emails [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] can be contacted, is given at your web site. No response from these emails is cheating with Indian Nationals by giving a misleading Ad at your web site.
5- As a consumer
1) I may file a case of non delivery of speed post, and over that no response is given from your side.
2) Giving misleading Ad at your web site.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Page 1 of 2 Appellant: Mr. Tejinder Singh through VC Respondent: Ms. Manmeet Kaur CPIO's representative The appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent. He submitted that no proof has been given regarding the respondent's reply that the complaint lodged by him was with wrong CCC. He further stated that the respondent should have transferred his query 3 to the concerned office instead of informing him that the matter does not relate to them. The CPIO's representative stated that the FAA in his order dated 3/12/2014 had directed for transferring query 3 from AD(PG) to AD(QS) and the relative supporting documents for both the issues raised by the appellant will be furnished to him.
Decision notice:
As stated by the CPIO's representative she should supply the information as above to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2