Central Information Commission
Tarachand vs Department Of Posts on 17 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
Second Appeal No.: CIC/POSTS/A/2018/119304
ShriTarachand Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Dept of Posts Respondent
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 13.12.2017, CPIO replied on 20.12.2017, FAO on 12.02.2018, Second
appeal filed on 06.03.2018, Hearing on 16.08.2018;
Proceedings on 22.06.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr. Dilip
Kumar Mittal.Directions and show cause issued.
Proceedings on 16.08.2018: Appellant present from NIC Ajmer, Public Authority represented by
Mr.BabulalBarolia, SPM from NIC Ajmer;
Date of Decision - 16.08.2018: Penalty dropped and disposed of.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information regarding the copy of his KisanVikas Patrathat he purchased from Head Post Office for Rs.10,000/-. The CPIO replied on20.12.2017 and said that the information cannot be provided under section 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA replied on 12.02.2018 and directed the CPIO tomake the information available to the appellant while explaining the correctfacts. As per the direction of FAA the CPIO replied on 16.02.2018 and intimatedthat in the absence of details like KVP number, registration number, date of itspurchase etc, no information can be supplied on hypothetical basis and as perDepartmental Post's Postal Manual-II the information can be supplied to thepurchaser of the KVP as per the prescribed format mentioned therein. Beingdissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission.
[Type text] Page 1
2. The Commission's order dated 22.06.2018:
2. The appellant stated that he booked KVP for Rs. 10,000/- around the month of May to July in 2004 but did not have any other details as he has lost the copy of KVP.
3. Mr. Dilip Kumar Mittal, Assistant Postmaster stated that since the appellant had not provided any details regarding the date of purchase, registration number, it was difficult to search and find the KVP of the appellant. They had advised the appellant to obtain the duplicate certificate from the Department but the appellant had not followed the prescribed procedure for applying for duplicate KVP.
4. The Commission finds that the CPIO has illegally denied the information regarding the KVP of the appellant under section 2 (f) of RTI Act and the CPIO has not shown any evidence of efforts made towards finding the KVP. The Commission advises the appellant to provide any additional information regarding his KVP and directs the CPIO to conduct fresh search for finding the appellant's KVP and status of its disposal. The CPIO is also required to provide a list of required documents for application of duplicate KVP to the appellant.
5. The Commission directs Mr. S.D. Sharma, CPIO as on 20.12.2017, to show-
cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for illegally denying the information sought. The CPIO is required to submit his explanation before 16.08.2018 and the matter is posted for compliance on the aforesaid date. Decision :
3. Shri S.D. Sharma, Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ajmer Division in his written submissions dated 08.08.2018, explained as under:
"It is submitted that I have not replied on 20.12.2017 to the RTI information seeker Sh. Tarachand on his RTI application dtd. 13.12.2017 but Sh. B.L. Barolia, CPIO & Sr. Postmaster Ajmer HO had replied to the seeker.
2. Further reply to the appellant, in compliance of the directions of the FAA on 12.02.2018 has also been exercised on 16.02.2018 by the above said CPIO Sh. B.L.Barolia, Sr. Postmaster, Ajmer HO and not by the undersigned.
3. Undersigned S.D. Sharma, was holding the charge of the Sr. Postmaster Ajmer HO on the date of proceedings held through V.C. on 22.06.2018 but have not dealt/replied into this case anywat.
4. Sh. B.L. Barolia, CPIO, who have dealt and replied into this case on 20.12.2017 and on 16.02.2018 is also holding the charge of the Sr. Postmaster Ajmer HO at present, who has stated further replied to the appellant into this case in response to the direction issued vide proceedings order dtd. 22.06.2018.
Therefore, it is submitted that I have not replied/dealt into this case and as such I have not illegally denied the information sought and my explanation on this accord may kindly be accepted accordingly."
[Type text] Page 2
4. The officer submitted that the appellant himself is not sure as to in which post office he purchased KisanVikas Patra. He further submitted that around 40 post offices are situated in Ajmer itself and as per the records there are no KVP purchased by the appellant during the period between July 2003 to December 2003. However, the respondent authority provided four KVP details which has similar name on 11.07.2018.
5. The Commission upon perusal of records and hearing the submissions of both the parties finds that the respondent authority has complied with Commission's order dated 22.06.2018. However, the appellant is not satisfied with the response. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent authority to facilitate inspection of records and provide certified copies of selected documents, free of cost. The explanation of the CPIO is satisfactory, hence penalty proceedings are dropped. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
[Type text] Page 3