Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Luku Paraja vs Department Of Posts on 31 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 No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/139134

 Luku Paraja                                                        ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                            VERSUS
                                             बनाम
 CPIO:
 Department of Posts,
 Koraput, Jeypore                                               ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 18.04.2023                   FA      : 17.05.2023            SA     : 17.09.2023

 CPIO : 10.05.2023                  FAO : 16.06.2023                Hearing : 21.01.2025


Date of Decision: 30.01.2025
                                            CORAM:
                                      Hon'ble Commissioner
                                    _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                           ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) "Sri. Luku Paraja worked as GDS (MTS) Postman at Koraput HO under DW basis- Payment detail and xerox copy of MR (ACG- 17) for the period 2012- 2021.

(ii) Payment detail & xerox copies of MR (ACG- 17) w.r.t mail conveyance from Koraput HO to Koraput R S SO and vice versa worked under DW basis for the period 2012-2021."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"The information as sought (i.e. payment detail) is not available in material form. Further, the duly sanctioned MR in shape of ACG-17 has been sent to Director of Accounts (Postal), Cuttack. Hence, can't be supplied."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 16.06.2023 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 17.09.2023.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Manoj Kumar Naik, SPO & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO and urged for directions to be ordered to provide the desired information.

7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that the relevant voucher would be available with DOA (Postal) and the same was duly informed to the Appellant. Upon a query from the Commission seeking to know as to why the RTI Application was not transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned record holder or Section 5(4) was not invoked for seeking assistance of the record holder, no explanation or submission was forthcoming.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that since the Respondent was aware of the concerned record holder, the RTI Application ought to have been transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to facilitate the Appellant in keeping with the spirit of Section 5(3) of the RTI Act which stipulates offering reasonable assistance to the RTI applicants to access information.

Now, therefore, due to the efflux of time, the onus to provide the information rests with the Respondent and in pursuance of the above observations, the Respondent CPIO is hereby directed to adequately liaise with the concerned record holder under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and procure the available information for providing it directly to the Appellant. The available information as procured from the concerned record holder shall be directly provided to the Appellant by the Respondent CPIO free of cost within 30 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

Further, the CPIO is cautioned against the recurrence of such lapses and from providing such evasive replies to the RTI Application(s) in the future.

9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 30.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer O/o. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sr. Supdt. & CPIO, Department of Posts, Koraput Division, Jeypore-764001

2. Luku Paraja Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)