Central Information Commission
Muralidhara A. N. vs Department Of Posts on 21 June, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/POSTS/C/2022/125997
Muralidhara A. N. ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts-India,
Mandya Division, Mandya-571401 (Karnataka).
...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.02.2022
CPIO replied on : 24.02.2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint received at CIC : 01.06.2022
Date of Hearing : 21.06.2023
Date of Decision : 21.06.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 7
Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:
• CPIO furnished reply, dated 24.02.2022, as under:Page 2 of 7
• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed instant complaint.
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO/SPO, Mandya Division vide letter dated 07.06.2023, as under :Page 3 of 7 Page 4 of 7
Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Complainant.Page 5 of 7
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant: Present Respondent: Mr. Loknath, Supdt. Post Office, Mandya Division.
The Complainant submitted that he has sought documents which are related with to the repair work/fencing work carried out and purchase of items illegally without following the rules and procedures prescribed by Postal Department, as such the said documents are having evidential values as the complainant wanted to produce them before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ petition filed by the complainant under the capacity of Divisional secretary of BPEA union. But the respondents wilfully delayed the supply of the said documents to create hindrance in Court proceeding. He stated that the documents were intentionally sent to him, when he was on sick leaves. He requested to penalise the CPIO and initiate action under Section 18 and 20 of the RTI Act. He insisted to initiate enquiry in the matter and department proceedings against the CPIO. He requested to direct the PIO to refund the money already credited to the Respondent.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the Complainant has sought information which is voluminous in nature and therefore, the Complainant was requested to inspect the records. He further submitted that the Complainant inspected the records on 07.03.2022 and credited Rs 894 for 447 pages. He stated that the fee has been charged as per RTI rules. Furthermore, the huge volume of certified documents was sent to complainant vide registered post dated 07.04.2022 but the same was returned undelivered with remarks "Addressee on leave, not in station". He stated that the complainant visited the office on 08.08.2022 and collected the relevant documents.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO within the prescribed time limit of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, Complainant has already inspected the records on 07.03.2022 and credited Rs 894 for 447 pages as per RTI rules. Furthermore, a huge volume of certified documents was sent to complainant vide registered post, dated 07.04.2022 but the same was returned undelivered with the remarks "Addressee on leave, not in station". However, the complainant visited the office on 08.08.2022 and collected the relevant documents. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.Page 6 of 7
In view of foregoing, Commission observes that the instant is the complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act 2005, where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with any malafide intention or without any reasonable cause by the Respondent. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information there appears no malafide nor cause of action which would necessitate action under section 18 or 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Information Commissioner (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 7 of 7