Central Information Commission
Smt. M. Kanaka Durga Bhavani vs Department Of Posts on 3 April, 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/2024/122491
M. Kanaka Durga Bhavani ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Posts, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Tenali
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13.12.2022 FA : 03.04.2023 SA : 26.07.2023
CPIO : 05.01.2023 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 18.03.2025
Date of Decision: 03.04.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I, M. K. Durga Bhavani W/o Mellacheruvu Narayana Murthy, R/o 10-14-87, Vedapatasala Street, Repalle wants to bring to your kind notice the following complaint.
My husband drawn a huge amount on 19-04-2021 at head post office Repalle, and went to the office for other work and I came to know it personally. Immediately I applied in RTI on 22-04 2021 and on 11-06-2021 seeking the transaction details and I was replied for the both letters on same date i.e. 16-06- Page 1 of 5 2021 stating that "As per Chapter 2, Section 8 rule no.4 of RTI act 2005, disclosure of personal information of an individual could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual and hence cannot be furnished." Again I went to Divisional office, Tenali and given a representation on 06-09- 2021 and I was replied on 04-10-2021 stating that "As per Chapter 2, Section 8 rule no.4 of RTI act 2005, disclosure of personal information of an individual could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual and hence cannot be furnished."
Next I went to Circle Office Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada and given a representation on 07-12-2021 and they forwarded the complaint to Divisional office, Tenali on 14-12-2021 seeking reply with an intimation to the circle office. But they didn't respond for a long time and after continuous remainders through phones and letters dated 12-07-2022 and 07-10-2022, finally after almost one year delay they replied stating that "it is not possible to provide the account details of an account holder to a person other than the account holder." I humbly submit that a legally wedded wife is always entitled to know the account details of her husband. A wife asking to know the account details of her husband doesn't mean unwarranted invasion of privacy of the husband. In this regard lam enclosing the order copy of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for your ready reference.
Hence, I request you to furnish the following information of my husband M. Narayana Murthy with the help of his Aadhar card no: ********9028 and pan card no: ******494D.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 2 of 5It is to inform that the information pertaining to a PO Savings Bank Customer is to be treated as confidential and details therefore not be divulged as per the rules/guidelines on the subject.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.07.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. G Karmakar Babu, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that despite her persistent efforts to obtain details of her husband M. Narayana Murthy's postal account transactions, particularly a significant withdrawal that took place on 19.04.2021 at the Repalle Head Post Office, the information has been wrongly denied by the Respondent. The appellant, claimed to be the legal nominee and wife of the said individual. However, the postal authorities repeatedly denied her request, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which exempts the disclosure of personal information that may cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Meanwhile, she also pursued legal recourse through the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Adding to her grievance, the postal authorities later claimed that no such account existed in their records, contradicting their previous refusals based on privacy concerns. The appellant contends that this inconsistency, along with the prolonged delay of over three years in disclosing such information, indicates deliberate obstruction and negligence by the authorities, causing her emotional and financial distress.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that it was informed to the Appellant that no such account existed in Postal Data Base. Moreover, the matter was already heard and disposed by the Commission vide RTI second appeal case No:
CIC/POSTS/C/2023/136676 dated 26.12.2024 which was disposed vide order dated 24.01.2025 stating that "No accounts were opened by Sri. M. Narayana Murthy at Repalle Page 3 of 5 Post Office. That being so, there appears to be no deliberate attempt on the part of the CPIO to obstruct any information. Accordingly, the complaint closed"
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the said matter has been heard in pursuance of the direction of High Court of Andra Pradesh W.P. No 27461 of 2023 dated 21.06.2024. Further, the Commission notes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. However, for providing contradictory replies, the CPIO is directed to send a proper written explanation. The written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper- compliance/add within 15 days of the receipt of this order pending which penal action will be initiated. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 03.04.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer, O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Supdt., & CPIO, Department of Posts, Tenali Division, Tenali Page 4 of 5
2. M. Kanaka Durga Bhavani Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)