Central Information Commission
Mrp D Raphael vs Department Of Posts on 29 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2015/000842/10692
29 June 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. P D Raphael,
R/o - Pudussery House,
Calvary Corner,
Poothole Post,
Thrissur District, Kerala - 680004
Respondent : CPIO / Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Posts,
O/o the Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thrissur Postal Division,
Thrissur - 680001
RTI application filed on : 07/01/2015
PIO replied on : 03/02/2015
First appeal filed on : 19/02/2015
First Appellate Authority order : 12/03/2015
Second Appeal dated : 31/03/2015
Information sought:
1. Whether the registered letter no A RL 557777250IN booked on 20/03/2014 at Ayyanthole Post Office by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur - 680 003 was delivered to Fr.
Jerome Cherussery, Manager, Devamatha CMI Public School, Patturaickal, Thiruvambady PO, Thrissur - 680 022. If yes, (a) specify the date and name of the post office, which was delivered the letter stated in this para (b) specify whether the letter stated in this para was delivered to the addressee or his authorized person; and (c) Specify whether the letter stated in this para was delivered to the authorized person as per the appropriate authorization letter or memo or slip of the addressee, if the letter was delivered to the authorized person.
2. Whether the Registered letter no. A RL 557777175IN booked on 20/03/2014 at Ayyanthole Post Office by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur 680 003 was delivered to Fr. Shaju Edamana, Principal, Devamatha CMI Public School, Patturaickal, Thiruvambady PO Thrissur - 680 022. If yes, (a) specify the date and name of the post office, which was delivered the letter stated in this para (b) specify whether the letter stated in this para was delivered to the addressee or his authorized person; and (c) Specify whether the letter stated in this para was delivered to the authorized person as per the appropriate authorization letter or memo or slip of the addressee, if the letter was delivered to the authorized person.
3. Whether the Registered letter no. A RL 557777175IN booked on 20/03/2014 at Ayyanthole Post Office by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur 680 003 was delivered to Paul Page 1 of 3 Rose, Former Principal, Devamatha CMI Public School, Patturaickal, Thiruvambady PO Thrissur - 680 022. If yes, (a) specify the date and name of the post office, which was delivered the letter stated in this para (b) specify whether the letter stated in this para was delivered to the addressee or his authorized person; and (c) Specify whether the letter stated in this para was delivered to the authorized person as per the appropriate authorization letter or memo or slip of the addressee, if the letter was delivered to the authorized person.
4. Whether the Registered letter no. A RL 557777175IN booked on 20/03/2014 at Ayyanthole Post Office by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur 680 003 was delivered to Jacob K J, Former Principal, Devamatha CMI Public School, Patturaickal, Thiruvambady PO Thrissur - 680 022. If yes, (a) specify the date and name of the post office, which was delivered the letter stated in this para (b) specify whether the letter stated in this para was delivered to the addressee or his authorized person; and (c) Specify whether the letter stated in this para was delivered to the authorized person as per the appropriate authorization letter or memo or slip of the addressee, if the letter was delivered to the authorized person.
5. Specify the name of the records and the documents, which are exempted from disclosure to the public, of a sub post office under your jurisdiction; and furnish a copy of relevant page/s of the document/s which show/s the records and documents exempted from disclosure to the public, stated in this para.
6. Specify whether Thiruvambady Post Office, Thrissur Division keeps Book of addressees' instruction as envisaged in Rule 133-134 of Post Manual Volume VI part I and specify the period of preservation of this book and specify the years to which this book is available at Thiruvambady PO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. P D Raphael through VC Respondent: Mr. Deepa Murli CPIO's representative through VC The appellant stated that he wants information relating to four registered letters mentioned in his RTI application. The CPIO's representative stated that the appellant is neither the sender nor the addressee and hence no information can be supplied to him. She claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant argued that he had filed a complainant in the Court and the RLs have been sent by the Court in connection with his complaint and he cannot be treated as third party.
Decision notice:
Section 2(n) of the RTI Act reads as under:
"'third party' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority."
In the matter at hand the appellant is seeking copies of documents relating to the RLs sent by the Court. The appellant is neither the sender nor the addressee of these RLs. Thus, he is clearly seeking third party information. The appellant's argument that the RLs have been sent by Page 2 of 3 the Court in connection with the complaint lodged by him does not in any way dilute the third party's right.
A coordinate bench of this Commission [file No. CIC/AD/A/2009/001101 - K A Pratihari vs. Department of Posts dated 22/10/2009] has held as under:
"6........... the Commission holds that information related to MOs, parcels, Regd Letters received by Shri Ramachandra Gochikar may not be provided to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) since the information is being held in fiduciary capacity by the Postal Department and also since the information sought is personal, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual."
The ratio of the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the matter at hand. The appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought is for larger public purpose. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the respondent's decision.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 3 of 3