Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Niqhat Fatima Rizvi vs Department Of Posts on 15 September, 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/2024/658113+
                                           CIC/POSTS/A/2024/657809+
                                           CIC/POSTS/A/2024/657639

 Niqhat Fatima Rizvi                                             ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
 CPIO:
 Department of Posts,                                       ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Nizamabad

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 04.08.2024 &         FA : 29.08.2024 &         SA      : 29.12.2024 &
 08.03.2024                 26.05.2024                26.12.2024
 CPIO : 22.08.2024,         FAO : 09.10.2024 &
                                                      Hearing : 12.09.2025
 28.08.2024 & 04.07.2024 04.10.2024
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.

Date of Decision: 12.09.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/658113 & CIC/POSTS/A/2024/657809

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) Has Waris Ali been permitted by the Post Master of your department to use your post office address personally for legal purposes?

2) Certain RTI/Appeal reply documents have been filed in the Hon'ble Court of Prayagraj by Waris Ali in which your post office address is mentioned as his contact address, is your Department aware of the same? (Copy attached)

3) Are these documents valid without post office permission?

4) If post office address is used without permission of post office, will it be legally valid?

5) Will your department take action for misuse of post office address?

..., etc./ other related information 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.08.2024 & 28.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

With reference to the RTI appeal on misuse of post office address by Dr. Waris Ali, information was obtained by the SPM Nizamabad RS SO. It is thus being informed to you that no letter is being delivered to him through C/o Postmaster address. Such letters if received any are being redirected to Nizamabad HO as missent letters. Intimation was also served to Postmaster Nizamabad HO in this regard. Also, it may please be noted that no letters are delivered to Dr. Waris Ali from Nizamabad RS SO during February/March of 2023.

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.10.2024 stated that:

All the points are of questions in nature. The public authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be had under the act which already exists with the public authority. The public authority is not bound to answer interrogative queries viz. "How/Why/When" do not come under the ambit of RTI Act. Also, in a/w RTI Act section 6.3. the public authority, to which such Page 2 of 6 application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority"

1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals dated 29.12.2024 & 26.12.2024.

Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/657639

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) At which address no. letters are currently being delivered to Dr. Waris Ali from your co postmaster, RS SO Nizamabad post office?

2) It was informed by your department through RTI (POSTS/R/E/23/15574) dated 10/11/2023 that letters is being sent to Dr. Waris Ali at his residence number 5- 6-24 Dwarkanagar, (Sigma Hospital) Nizamabad. is this information correct?

3) Your department issued notice dated 04/02/2023 to Dr. Waris Ali for not using the post office at which house address?

4) Why is your department writing to Sigma Hospital with Dr. Waris Ali's address 5-6-24, Dwarkanagar Nizamabad?

5) What is the home address given for sending letters to Dr. Waris Ali from your post office? ..., etc./ other related information 2.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.05.2024.

2.2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1,2. The information available with the CPIO was supplied on 10.11.2023.

3. Information relates to Third Party, hence cannot be supplied.

4. The information requisitioned cannot be supplied, in the light of the DOPT OM No.1/7/2009-IR dated 01.06.2009 Page 3 of 6

5. The information is not readily available, hence cannot be furnished. etc. The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2024 stated that:

All the points are of questions in nature. The public authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be had under the act which already exists with the public authority. The public authority is not bound to answer interrogative queries viz. "How/Why/When" do not come under the ambit of RTI Act. Also, in a/w RTI Act section 6.3. the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority"

2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.12.2024.

Hearing proceedings and Decision:-

3. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Shushmita Banerjee, Inspector of Post, attended the hearing through video conference.

4. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in all the three cases, the appellant had sought information regarding misuse of office address by her husband i.e Dr. Waris Ali against which a detailed reply had been provided vide letters dated 22.08.2024, 04.07.2024. Additionally, delivery of letters to the office address of Dr. Waris Ali has been stopped now. She further stated that personal information of Dr. Waris Ali (third party), has not been furnished.

5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO's have provided appropriate replies to the RTI Applications vide letters dated 22.08.2024 and 04.07.2024. The Commission notes that the appellant has sought for the personal information of Dr. Waris Page 4 of 6 Ali (third party), and the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

"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..."

6. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead her case or contest the CPIO's submissions and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 12.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO O/o. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sr. Supdt., & CPIO, Department Of Posts, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad -503001

2. Niqhat Fatima Rizvi Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)