Central Information Commission
Ram Vilash Purohit vs Department Of Posts on 10 May, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No(s).:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/138621-UM+
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/111823-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110587-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110585-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2020/120990-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/139206-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/146032-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2020/115164-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141361-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141364-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141365-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141358-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/156579-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141357-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2020/102621-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141354-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141355-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110588-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2020/110211-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110586-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/139207-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110185-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141360-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141362-UM
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141363-UM
Shri Ram Vilash Purohit,
....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1) CPIO,
O/o of the Chief Postmaster General,
Department of Posts, Delhi Circle,
New Delhi-110001
2) CPIO,
Department of Post,
(O/o Sr. Supdt of Post Offices
New Delhi West Division), Naraina,
I.E. Head Post Office, New Delhi 110028
3) CPIO,
Department of Posts,
O/o the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices,
New Delhi South West Division,
New Delhi- 110021
4) CPIO,
Department of Posts,
Office of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices,
Delhi East Division, Delhi- 110051
5) CPIO,
O/o Sr. Supdt of Post Offices,
New Delhi Central Division,
Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi - 110001
6) CPIO,
Department of Posts,
O/o the Senior Supdt. of Post Offices,
Airmail Sorting Division, New Delhi- 110021
7) CPIO,
O/o Senior Manager,
Mail Motor Service, Nairaina,
Delhi 110028
8) CPIO,
Department of Posts,
O/o the Supdt. of Post Offices,
New Delhi South Division, Delhi- 110019
प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2021
Date of Decision : 07.05.2021
ORDER
RTI I :- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/138621-UM Date of RTI application 10.05.2019 CPIO's response 25.06.2019 Date of the First Appeal 25.06.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 29.07.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.08.2019 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points:
• How many pieces were purchased for the office during the year April 2017 to 31.3.2018 month wise each item mentioned at serial number, Gum bottle to 22 A 4 Computer papers?
• Total cost during the year 2017-18 as mentioned above. • How much budget was allotted? During the year 2017- 18 as above. Etc. The AD (PC), O/o CPMG Deptt. Of Posts, vide letter dated 25.06.2019 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 29.07.2019 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed the Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI II :- CIC/POSTS/A/2021/111823-UM
Date of RTI application 06.11.2020
CPIO's response 09.12.2020,
15.12.2020,
27.11.2020
Date of the First Appeal 21.12.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 25.01.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 17.03.2021
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Please provide a certified copy photo copy of the delegation of powers to the PMG (M&BD) Delhi Circle, by the Delhi Circle or by any other Competent Authority. Also provide certified copy of an office order by the CPMG Delhi Circle assigning duties of the PMG (M&BD) daily. Say what is responsibility of PMG (M&BD) daily to watch & ward.
• Please provide a certified copy of inspection report of CPMG Delhi Circle inspected offices under him/her in the Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. Did he/she inspect any office during this mentioned period? Please provide names of the offices.
• Did he/she made surprise inspection/random any office during the periods 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018? Did he/she check office table /almirah/Log Books/surprisely during the mentioned period? Etc. The CPIO/AD, Deptt. Of Posts, vide letter dated 15.12.2020 enclosed a copy to the Appellant. Further, the CPIO/AD (PO & Co-ordination), O/o Chief PMG, Deptt. Of Posts vide letter dated 09.12.2020 provided part reply on point no. 02 and remaining information was denied under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act. Further, in respect to point no. 03 informed that inspections done as per the questionnaire. The CPIO/AD (PC), Deptt. Of Posts vide letter dated 27.11.2020 in respect to point no. 04 informed that PMG (M&BD) has not drawn Transport Allowance during the year 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2018. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 29.07.2019 observed as follows:
RTI III :- CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110587-UM Date of RTI application 14.10.2020 CPIO's response 19.11.2020 Date of the First Appeal 12.12.2020 First Appellate Authority's response 15.01.2021 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.03.2021 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points:
• Shri Dushyant Mudgal stayed in the room no. 1 of the guest house for 12 days w.e.f. 21.01.2019 to 01.02.2019 and paid Rs. 540/- (Rent Rs. 25/-+20/-AC. He stayed more than 10 days therefore please provide a copy sanction for 12 days stayed. In what capacity he stayed? No designation mentioned.
• Please provide information date, month, year of his joining government service in the department of posts. In what departments he had worked w.e.f. 01.01.2008 to 30.09.2020. His designation of each posting please provide with full office addresses he held during the period in question.
• Please provide a copy of bill of Inspection quarters for Rs. 540/- he paid for room rent. Plus his catering bills's copies he availed in the rooms/dining hall etc. of the quarters during the period 21.01.2019 to 01.02.2019. How many Breakfasts, how many Lunches how many dinners/cold drinks/hard drinks/how many tea/coffee in the morning and evening he had. Etc. The CPIO/AD (Bldg.), Deptt. Of Posts, vide letter dated 19.11.2020 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 15.01.2021 observed as follows:
RTI IV :- CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110585-UM Date of RTI application 23.11.2020 CPIO's response 16.12.2020/ 11.01.2021 Date of the First Appeal 02.01.2021 First Appellate Authority's response 04.02.2021 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.03.2021 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Please provide information whether he was getting Transport Allowance during the years 2016 to 31.12.2019?
• Please provide information whether the log books of cars allotted to him during the year 2016, 2017 2018, 2019 and checked by any senior officer than him? Car number of postal services allotted to him during the cited period please provide. • Please provide whether the Audit party of Principal Director Audit & Finance audited Log books of cars DL 9CAA 1636 and any other for the period 2016 to 2019 Dec. (4Years) Audit done? If any para of audit is pending in the office of the PMG (MB) or CPMG. What action CPMG took about audit of Log books. Etc. The CPIO/AD (MO), Deptt. Of Posts vide letter dated 16.12.2020 in respect to point no. 02 to 04 furnished reply to the appellant. Further, the CPIO/AD (PC), Deptt. Of Posts, vide letter dated 11.01.2021 in respect to point no. 1 informed that No such Audit was done by Principal Director Audit & Finance. However, a Local Audit Inspection was done by the Director General of Audit Finance and Communications in 2018-19 and no such Audit Para in respect of Log Book of car DL 9 CAA 1636 was raised by the audit party. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 04.02.2021 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI V:- CIC/POSTS/A/2020/120990-UM Date of RTI application 05.01.2020 CPIO's response 20.02.2020 Date of the First Appeal 29.02.2020 First Appellate Authority's response 23.03.2020 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.07.2020 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 09 points:
• Shri G. A. Khan stayed in suit No. 3 w.e.f. 20.12.18 (20 hr) to 21.12.18 (7 hr). He was charged for one day Rs. 100/-+20/- for AC/NO room heater & geyser charges taken. Please provide information for non- recovery? Please provide his designation and full postal address from which city/class he belongs. Did he apply for room or he was guest of Shri Brijesh Kumar GM BD Dak Bhawan came without advance information. Please provide information why his designation was not obtained in the visitor's book?
• Shri S. Man stayed in suit No. 2 & 4 (2 rooms) w.e.f. 17.12.2018 2.30pm t o 22.12.18 6.30 am 5 da ys at Rs. 250/- each room Rs. 500/ - per day for 5 days Rs. 2500/-. Please provide information why not charged AC/Heater/Geysers for both the rooms? There are no rule to allot two rooms for one officers/or private persons in the above mentioned circular then how he was given 2 rooms? Please provide his designation and full postal address, please provide a photocopy of his letter for booking a room. Please provide a photo copy of his ID obtained if he was a private person. Police department had issued instruction that ID should be obtained from the private persons staying in the government guest houses too.
• O/o MINIS stayed in w.e.f. 26.12.2018 11.30 am to 02.01.2019 8.30 am Room not mentioned. for 8 days at Rs. 120/- Rs.960/- heater/geysers not charged. If you count check in time of arrival one day over on 27.12.2018: 11.30 am check out time Thus only 7 days someone stayed Whereas charged for 8 days. Please provide information for non-charging of heater/geysers etc. and charging of Rs. 100/ - as room rent. The above noted circular mentioned it is for officers on tour/retired/ on leave etc. and not for office purposes. Here, who stayed in which room please provide full address postal and the designation. Person stay in fife room not the office of the Minister. Visitor book is important document from legal point of view. Please provide information.
The CPIO/AD (Bldg.), Deptt. Of Posts, vide letter dated 20.02.2020 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 23.03.2020 observed as follows:
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI VI.:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/139206-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 24.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 02.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 14.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area.
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1. • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The SSPO-NDWD, Deptt. of Posts, vide letter dated 24.06.2019 furnished a point-wise suitable reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information has been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI VII .:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/146032-UM
Date of RTI application 13.07.2019
CPIO's response 29.07.2019
Date of the First Appeal 05.08.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 06.09.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 20.09.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points:
• In your letter dated 11.06.2019 it is mentioned that no separate log book is maintained month wise. Please provide order of the CPMG as to how it is maintained? What are his/her new orders regarding log books?
• Log book has no car number/no kilometre used per day. Is it permissible by the CPMG and the Director of Accounts Audit of postal services? Date from which store this logbook got or purchased from markets. Please furnish store indent copy. • It appears that this Log book has been re-constructed for my RTI replies hurriedly and handed over to me. Is it so? If it is then matter is serious. Please provide information where is original log book written 6 months ago? And issues related thereto.
The CPIO/SSPO, NDWD, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi, vide letter dated 29.07.2019 furnished a suitable point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 06.09.2019 observed that the available information had already been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI VIII .:- CIC/POSTS/A/2020/115164-UM
Date of RTI application 25.10.2019
CPIO's response 29.11.2019/
23.01.2020/
03.02.2020
Date of the First Appeal 08.12.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.01.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.05.2020
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points:
• Provide certified photo copies of Log Book car No. 9 CAE 3042 for the month of November 2017 attached to NDW.
• Provide certified photo copies of dies bills for car No. 3042 for the month of November 2017.
• Provide certified photo copies of stock register where empty log books entered. How many log books purchased w.e.f. 2017 to Dec. 2018? If entered in the computer please supply a print out of the computer related to log books. etc. The CPIO/SSPO, NDWD, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi, vide letter dated 29.11.2019, furnished a suitable point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.01.2020 observed as follows:
Furthermore, the CPIO / Accounts Officer, vide letter dated 23.01.2020 provided information on point no. 02 of the RTI application as per available material. Thereafter, the Sr. Supdt. of Post, vide letter dated 03.02.2020, informed the Appellant on points 01, 05 and 08 that no further material information is available with them.
RTI IX .:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141361-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 12.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 01.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area.
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1. • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/SPO-NDSWD, Deptt. of Posts, vide letter dated 12.06.2019 furnished a point-wise suitable reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information had already been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI X :- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141364-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 12.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 01.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area.
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1. • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/SPO-NDSWD, Deptt. of Posts, vide letter dated 12.06.2019 furnished a suitable point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information had already been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI XI.:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141365-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 12.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 01.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area.
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1. • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/SPO-NDSWD, Deptt. of Posts, vide letter dated 12.06.2019 furnished a suitable point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information had already been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI XII :- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141358-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 20.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 04.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area.
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1. • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/SSPO, Deptt. Of Posts vide letter dated 20.06.2019 furnished a point-wise suitable reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information has been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI XIII:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/156579-UM
Date of RTI application 25.07.2019
CPIO's response 30.08.2019/
14.11.2019
Date of the First Appeal 25.09.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 08.11.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 25.11.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points:
• Photo copies of Log book Car No. DL9 CAE 2926 certified for the month of March 2018. Along with a copy of rules as to how many Kma SSPOs can use Diesel/Petrol, oil in a day, month, year. Who issued the order? Is it Ministry of Finance of the D.G. Post? Please provide latest copy of rules.
• Please provide information as to how many officers of the East Div. 51 got reimbursement of Mobile Phones, given in the Office of the CPMG and bills presented in the office of the CPMG or at any other office, and the amount actually given to them as per instructions of the MOF. It is not exempted I had already received many copies of bills/phone number from the Meghdoot Bhawan, Officers. It is government expenditure and open to RTI applicants. Period March 2018 (One Month) etc. The CPIO/SSPO, DED, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi vide letter dated 30.08.2019 furnished a point- wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 08.11.2019 observed as follows: Thereafter, the CPIO, vide letter dated 14.11.2019 requested the Appellant to visit their office for inspection of log book on any working day.
RTI XIV:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141357-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 20.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 04.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area.
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1. • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/Sr. Supdt - Air Mail, Deptt. of Posts vide letter dated 20.06.2019 furnished a point- wise suitable reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information has already been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI XV:- CIC/POSTS/A/2020/102621-UM
Date of RTI application 27.10.2019
CPIO's response 11.12.2019
Date of the First Appeal 04.12.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 06.01.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.01.2020
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points:
• PMG Kolkata (name not mentioned) used your car No. DL9 CAA 5592 on 06.01.2019 (Sunday). Timings of car used not mentioned in the log book. Please provide a copy of rule under which PMG Kolkata is entitled to use car of your office. A copy of his tour programmed and T.A. bill drawn may please be provided to me. His name also.
• As per staff car rules framed by the MOF officers cannot use cars on Sundays/holidays. Pease intimate reasons for this violation of rules. The Log book not signed by the PMG but by your official. Please intimate his name and designation. And was he with him in the car for the entire journeys? Please provide full postal address of the PMG in question. His name also. • PMG Punjab (name not mentioned) used your car No. DL9CAA 5592 on 08.01.2019. Please provide a copy of his tour programme and T.A. bill drawn for the period. His address be given with name. etc. The CPIO/SSPO-NDCD, Deptt. Of Posts vide letter dated 11.12.2019 informed that information asked by the Appellant had already been provided vide their office letter of even no. dated 24.10.20149. However, a copy of the letter was once again enclosed. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 06.01.2020 observed that a suitable reply had already been furnished and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
XVI :- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141354-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 04.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 01.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points: • Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area.
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1. • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/Sr. Supdt - Air Mail, Deptt. of Posts, vide letter dated 04.06.2019 furnished a point- wise suitable reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information has been furnished to the Appellant and further upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI XVII.:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141355-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 04.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 01.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area.
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1. • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/Sr. Supdt - Air Mail, Deptt. Of Posts vide letter dated 04.06.2019 furnished a point- wise suitable reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information has already been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI XVIII :- CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110588-UM Date of RTI application 18.10.2020 CPIO's response 18.11.2020 Date of the First Appeal 08.12.2020 First Appellate Authority's response 05.01.2021 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.03.2021 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points:
• Please furnish names of Drivers deployed by you or by any other authority in the duty of CPMG/PMG/DPS/SSPOs Delhi Circle posts New Delhi which were engaged/hired/ by you on contractual basis through PGPL Gurgaon or through any other Agency during the month of January 2018, March 2018, December 2018 and January 2019 (4 months) • Please furnish car numbers allotted to them/each driver para 1 to be given by you. And in whose duty of Officers mentioned para 1. Date, month, year when keys of the cars handed over to each driver.
• Please furnish salary paid in rupees to each driver per month Jan, 2018, March, 2018, Dec, 2018 & Jan 2019. / OR wages paid per hour of work to each driver for 4 months cited here above then what total comes per month.
The CPIO/Sr. Manager, Mail Motor Service, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi vide letter dated 18.11.2020 informed that the information is not available. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 05.01.2021 observed as follows:
Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Commission with a request to provide the complete information.
RTI XIX :- CIC/POSTS/A/2020/110211-UM Date of RTI application 18.12.2019 CPIO's response 07.02.2020 Date of the First Appeal 29.01.2020 First Appellate Authority's response 24.12.2020 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.03.2020 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points pertaining to allotment of cars:
• Please furnish information as to whom 8 cars are allotted.
• Name of each officer with designation and date from which utilising cars/with purpose of allotment.
• Are they authorise to use cars for personal/home purposes? Etc. The CPIO/Sr. Manager, Mail Motor Services, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi vide letter dated 07.02.2020 informed that the information sought does not come under the Purview of definition of information under Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 24.02.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Commission with a request to provide the complete information.
RTI XX : - CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110586-UM Date of RTI application 27.11.2020 CPIO's response 14.12.2020 Date of the First Appeal 22.12.2020 First Appellate Authority's response 15.01.2021 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.03.2021 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points:
• Please provide a certified photocopy of sanctioned of car washing/ sanitized Car No.2966 (Unit no.SG-14) DPS (M&BD) on 12.08.2018 by M/s Rawat Motors ND and paid Rs. 1770/- vide your letter No. MMS/RTI/ 103/July/2020 dated 25.08.2020. Competent authority copies certified.
• Please provide information how many cars washed/cleaned in your MMS compound by your equipment's from the period 1.1.2020 to 30.09.2020? Number of cars of each and whom allotted? Bills of Invoice of your MMS charges for the washing also be furnished.
• Please furnish copies of Audit reports of office of Sr. Manager MMS /workshop also/done by the audit parties of the year 2018, 2019 & 01.01.2020 to 30.08.2020. Certified copies may please be provided. Name of the Audit officers, full address, phone numbers also be provided. How many Audit parties come to Audit office of MMS? Name and full address please be given.
The CPIO/Sr. Manager, Mail Motor Services, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi vide letter dated 14.12.2020 informed that the asked information is created from Old RTI and as per guidelines of CVC No. CVC/RTI/MISC/16/006 dated 10.03.2017 vide circular No. 03/03/2017 that "Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act." Hence regretted to supply. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 15.01.2021 observed as follows:
Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Commission with a request to provide the complete information.
RTI XXI:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/139207-UM
Date of RTI application 01.06.2019
CPIO's response 20.06.2019/
02.07.2019/
19.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 24.06.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 31.07.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 14.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• 08 Sumo Tata cars are being used by the officers (l) Shri R.V. Choudhary DPS No. DL 9CAE 2966 (2) Shri Vicky Kumar SSRM Air Mail Stg. Dn. No. DL 9CAA5587 (3) Shri Parveen Kumar SSPOs Central Dn., DL 9CAA5592 (4) Shri Pawan Kumar SSPOs South West Dn. DL 9CAA5593 (5) Shri Anand Singh SSPOs North Dn. DL9CAA7971 (6) Ms. Anu Paul SSPOs East Dn. DL 9CAE2926 (7) Shri Abhas SSPOs West Dn. DL9CAE3042 (B) Shri U.S.Gaur SSPOs South Dn. DL9CAE3444. Please furnish information as to when these are purchased? Whether tenders were Called through newspapers? If called please furnish a copy of the clippings of statement? Names of the Committee members attended to finalize the deal.
• Please furnish copies of Log Books of the above 08 Tata Sumo used by the officers named above for the month of January 2019.
• Please furnish copies of the petrol/diesel consumed by these 08 Sumos in questions, bills of the petrol pump for the month of January 2019. Etc. The CPIO/Sr. Manager, Mail Motor Services, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi vide letter dated 20.06.2019 furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant. Further, the CPIO/SSPO, Delhi East Division, Deptt. of Posts vide letter dated 02.07.2019 in respect to query no. 02 denied the information under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and in respect to query no. 03 informed that no such information is available and transferred to O/o GM-Finance, Delhi - 110054.
Moreover, AD (MO) O/o the Chief PMG, Deptt. of Posts vide letter dated 19.06.2019 in respect to query no. 02 informed that in relation to vehicle no. DL9CAE2966, no such information is maintained in MO Section and on query no. 03 informed that "in respect of vehicle no. DL9CAE2966" and transferred to AD(PC), O/o CPMG, Delhi Circle, New Delhi - 110001. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 15.01.2021 observed as follows:
Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Commission with a request to provide the complete information.
RTI XXII:- CIC/POSTS/A/2021/110185-UM
Date of RTI application 07.11.2020
CPIO's response 01.12.2020
Date of the First Appeal 07.12.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 14.01.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.03.2021
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Please provide certified photocopies of leave applications viz; casual leave/P.L./Medical leave or any other leave of Shri Sanjeev Kumar driver to DPS(M&BD) for the year Jan.2018 to Dec.2018 and Jan.2020 to October.2020.
• Please provide certified photo copies of leave applications viz: casual leave/P.L./Medical Leave or any other leave of Shri Mahipal Singh Driver to PMG(M&BD) period Jan 2018 to Dec.2018 and Jan.2020 to October.2020 (22 months) • Please provide information car numbers which Shri Rajesh Kumar Driver DPS (O) driver during the year January 2017 to Dec. 2017, Jan.2018 to Dec.2018, Jan. 2019 to Dec. 2019 and Jan. 2020 to Oct.2020. etc. The CPIO/Sr. Manager, Mail Motor Services, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi vide letter dated 01.12.2020 in respect to query no. 01 denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, in respect to query no. 02 & 03 informed that Shri Mahi Pal Singh Yadav, M.V. Driver and Shri Rajesh Kumar-II, M.V. Driver are transferred from their unit to Circle office.
As such required information may please be obtained from Circle office and in respect to query no. 04 appellant was informed that information asked is not clear as he has not provided any vehicle number. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 14.01.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
RTI XXIII :- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141360-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 21.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 04.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area. Please furnish. • Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1. • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/SPO-NDSD, Deptt. of Posts, vide letter dated 21.06.2019 furnished a point-wise suitable reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information had already been furnished the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI XXVI:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141362-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 21.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 04.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:
• Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area;
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1; • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/SPO-NDSD, Deptt. of Posts, vide letter dated 21.06.2019 furnished a suitable point- wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information had already been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI XXV:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141363-UM
Date of RTI application 19.05.2019
CPIO's response 21.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 04.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 07.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points: • Names and designations of the officers (including Inspectors) with official addresses who are getting reimbursement of mobile charges. This is in respect of those who are posted outside Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi but in Delhi Area;
• Numbers of mobile phones with name of the companies on which bills are reimbursed every month. Please provide along with the information S. No. 1; • Please furnish photo copies of bills which were paid by you during the month of November 2018 as re-imbursed. Etc. The CPIO/SPO-NDSD, Deptt. of Posts, vide letter dated 21.06.2019 furnished a suitable point- wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 07.08.2019 observed that the available information had already been furnished to the Appellant and upheld the reply of the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, AD / CPIO, O/o of the Chief Postmaster General; Shri Virender Singh, Superintendent-cum-CPIO, New Delhi West Division, D/o Post; Dr. Annu Paul, SSP-cum-CPIO, South West Division, D/o Post ; Shri Ravi Midha, SPO along with Shri Atul Mohan Saxena, ASPO, Delhi South and East Division, D/o Post; Shri Suresh Kumar Bharadwaj, SPO, Delhi Central Division; Ms. Suman Jhakar, ASPO, Air Mail Services; Shri S. S. Yadav, Senior Manager, Mail Motor Services, through tele-conferencing;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Appellant was contacted on the phone but he pleaded his inability to attend the hearing due to his ill health / medical reasons and further requested the Commission to decide the cases on merits. In its reply, the Respondents from O/o of the Chief Postmaster General; Department of Post, New Delhi West Division; New Delhi South West Division; Delhi East Division; New Delhi Central Division; Airmail Sorting Division, New Delhi; Mail Motor Service, Delhi and New Delhi South Division, respectively, reiterated the replies of the CPIOs and FAAs and further stated that the information sought as available on their records had already been shared with the Appellant within the stipulated time frame in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
In Appeal Number (s) CIC/POSTS/A/2019/156579 and CIC/POSTS/A/2019/141358-UM, the Respondent, East Division, informed the Commission that the information sought has been furnished to the Appellant and that he had showed his satisfaction to their replies and had withdrawn these two matters. A withdrawal letter dated 31.01.2020 sent by the Appellant to the Commission as well as the Respondent, East Division, is taken on record.
Attention of the Appellant is drawn towards the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under: -
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
The Commission further referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees.
This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
Furthermore, in a recent judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had observed as under:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
The Commission further observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and
(iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
Though the Appellant was not present during the hearing to defend his cases, the Commission, following a close look at his Second Appeals and the deposition of the Respondents, observes that most of his Appeals fell short of addressing the larger public interest which is the key objective of the RTI Act, 2005. Such Appeals result in wastage of the time of all three entities
- the CIC, the Respondent Public Authorities and the Appellant himself. Some of the PIOs told the Commission in the hearing that the applications of the Appellant were leading to wastage of time and at least one Respondent said that the Appellant's applications amounted to harassment of the Public Authority. Therefore, the Commission advises the Appellant to come up with the applications of the larger public interest to meet the key objectives of the Act which is to bring transparency and accountability in the working of the Public Authorities. The Commission also makes it clear that it can't allow its platform to be used for settling personal scores or carrying on personal vendetta.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by all the Respondents and considering the replies furnished by them, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matters. For redressal of his personal grievance, if any, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् एवं सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 निनां क / Date: 07.05.2021