Central Information Commission
Adil Ahmed Siddiqui vs Department Of Posts on 13 April, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/POSTS/A/2021/112972
Adil Ahmed Siddiqui ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts,
O/o Sr. Supdt. Post Office,
RTI Cell, Bareilly Division,
Bareilly - 243001, Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/04/2022
Date of Decision : 11/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/12/2020
CPIO replied on : 31/12/2020
First appeal filed on : 11/01/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 01/02/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/03/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.12.2020 seeking the following information:
1) In which year did the roof of Kila Sub Post Office's Building collapse?
2) Provide name and designation of the staff of that time.1
3) Provide Name, Address and copy of Payment Bill of contractor who repaired the roof.
4) The records of how many customers were destroyed due to collapse of the roof, out of which some were paid and some were not paid. Provide the name of those customers.
5) If the account holders whose records have been destroyed have ever been informed or given notice.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 31.12.2020 stating as follows:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.01.2021. FAA's order dated 01.02.2021 held as under:-
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant vide letter dated Nil against point No. 1 & 2 of the RTI application which is as follows:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Vijay Veer Singh Yadav, ASP & Rep. of CPIO present through video- conference.
The Commission at the outset apprised the Appellant that the reply and information provided by the CPIO is in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. In response to it, the Appellant in a vague manner gave reference to one of his earlier Second Appeal wherein the previous bench had directed the CPIO to file an affidavit deposing that the information sought is not available. He further stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that complete specific information has not been provided to him which led him to filing of the instant RTI Application which is an extended form of an earlier information sought. He added that the fact remains that he was still not in receipt of complete information by the CPIO.
The Rep. of CPIO reiterated the averred reply and further agreed to abide by the direction of the Commission.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief in the matter.
However, to allay the apprehension of the Appellant the CPIO is hereby directed to file an affidavit with the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Appellant stating categorically that records of information sought for at points no. 4 and 5 of RTI Application are not available in their office. The said affidavit should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
सरोजपुनहािन) Saroj Punhani (सरोजपु हािन सूचनाआयु%) Information Commissioner (सू 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा(णत स)या*पत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4