Central Information Commission
Rohith Methayil Rajagopal vs Department Of Posts on 17 June, 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/2024/605607
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/POSTS/C/2024/605608
Rohith Methayil Rajagopal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of Post,
Kochi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/Complaint:
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No./Com Reply Appeal Order Appeal/Co
plaint mplaint
1. 605607 11.10.2023 07.11.2023 10.11.2023 29.11.2023 09.02.2024
2. 605608 11.10.2023 08.11.2023 10.11.2023 29.11.2023 09.02.2024
Note - The above-mentioned cases have been clubbed together for decision as these
are based on the same RTI Application.
Date of Hearing: 05.06.2025
Date of Decision: 17.06.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Page 1 of 6
Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/605607
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "According to the RTI Act, 2005; kindly furnish the submission details of the Proper Channel Application submitted either by the Kochi City Police Commissionerate / Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam Central or by the Elamakkara Police Station, related to obtaining the Sender Details of every Consignments arriving at Ernakulam Head Post Office & Elamakkara Post Office, addressed to 'Rohith Methayil Rajagopal' resident of 33/441, Methayil, Elamakkara Post Office, Kochi-682026, Ernakulam Dist., Kerala State. Kindly furnish a copy or certified copy of the Request / Application of Proper Channel received by the concerned offices at the Department of Posts from the Police Department.
(ii) As per the RTI Act, other than the Request / Application of Proper Channel mentioned in the First Query, what are the serious issues pointed out by the Kochi City Police and the Subordinate Departments brought before the authorities of Ernakulam Head Post Office and Elamakkara Post Office? As per the extreme level of investigation and examination for the past One Year around me by putting very high efforts by the Kochi City Police and Subordinate Departments, I request the CPIO concerned to verify the digital and electronic transferred details and records between the Postal Departments and Police Departments, do the serious issues pointed by the police had any connection with Terrorism / Psychotropic Narcotics Substances / Arms & Ammunition / Counterfeit Currencies / Money Laundering / Using Humans as Weapons. In view of more than 100 numbers of Consignments information has handed over to the Police; kindly provide such information available with the Police Page 2 of 6 Departments as the case and valuable findings of efficient officers in Kochi City Police are directly affecting to the Applicant."
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1& 2: No such information with respect to Elamakkara PO is available with this CPIO. Regarding the same in respect of Ernakulam Head Post Office, the request is transferred to Sr. Postmaster & CPIO, Ernakulam HO as per section 6(3)(1) of the RTI act, 2005."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 29.11.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 09.02.2024 Complaint No. CIC/POSTS/C/2024/605608
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.11.2023. and the same is reproduced as under:-
"(i) No such application was received from Police Department.
(ii) Not applicable."
2.1. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 29.11.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.2. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 09.02.2024. Hearing Proceedings & Decision
3. The Appellant/Complainant was present during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, R Hemlatha, Dy. Post Master & CPIO along with Devi P Vijayan attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 3 of 64. The Appellant/Complainant stated that the reply provided by the CPIO is malicious and challenged the unavailability of information stated in the replies.
5. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant/Complainant and submitted that under the RTI mandate, only the available information can be provided to the applicants.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that in a strict sense the RTI Application(s) under reference do not even seek any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the grounds mentioned in the complaint and the second appeal assail the replies of the CPIO, urging for investigation/monitoring his PG portal complaint investigation against some alleged malpractices in the post offices. Here, the Appellant/Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was 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."Page 4 of 6
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...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...." (Emphasis Supplied)
7. Having observed as above, the Appellant/Complainant is advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum.
8. The Appeal/Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 17.06.2025 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 Postmaster, CPIO, Ernakulam Head Post Office, Department Of Post, Kochi-682011 Page 5 of 6 2 Rohith Methayil Rajagopal Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)