Central Information Commission
C H Sammaiah vs Department Of Posts on 6 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2015/002087
CIC/BS/A/2015/002088
Appellant: Mr. C H Sammaiah,
H.No. 9-1-94/4,
Medical Colony,
Bhadrachalam-507111,
Khammam Distt,
Telengana State.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Supdt.,
Deptt. Of Post,
O/o Supdt. of Post Office,
Khammam Divn.,
Khammam-507003,
Telangana.
Date of Hearing: 3.3.2017
Dated of Decision: 3.3.2017
ORDER
Facts:
CIC/BS/A/2015/002088
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 18.3.2015 seeking information regarding: reasons as to why the Head Postmaster Bhadrachalam HPO has not responded to his letters dated 5.9.2012, 24.9.2012, 21.4.2014 etc. and not rectified irregularities of late crediting of appellant's pension; furnish reasons as to why Bhadrachalam HPO has failed to respond to appellant's complaint letter dated 20.6.2013 and 18.11.2013 etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 17.4.2015 stating that his letters are not seeking 'information', as defined in RTI Act. The appellant filed first appeal dated 13.5.2015 with First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 3.6.2015. The appellant filed second appeal on 9.10.2015 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him. CIC/BS/A/2015/0020887
3. The appellant filed RTI application dated 18.3.2015 seeking information regarding: details of his letters which were replied by the respondent on 20.1.2015 and 22.1.2015; reasons as to why the Supt. of Post Office, Khammam Divn. has not responded to his letters dated 22.12.2014 and 30.12.2014 etc.
4. The CPIO responded on 17.4.2015. The appellant filed first appeal dated 12.5.2015 with First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 23.6.2015. The appellant filed second appeal on 9.10.2015 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him. Hearing:
5. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
6. The respondent stated that the appellant was seeking reasons for not taking any action on his various letters. The respondent stated that the information sought was not covered within the meaning of 'information' u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The respondent further stated that appellant wants to settle his grievance through RTI. The respondent said that the appellant should approach the concerned department for redressal of his grievance. Discussion/ observation:
7. The respondent should re-visit appellant's two RTI applications both dated 18.3.2015 and provide information on various points, wherein appellant was seeking specific information e.g. copy of report submitted by the Post Master Bhadrachalam on office letter dated 18.2.2014, within 15 days of receipt of this order.
Decision:
8. The respondent is directed to take action as per para 7 above.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar