Central Information Commission
Pawan Sharma vs Department Of Posts on 29 May, 2020
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/633738
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/633738
In the matter of:
Pawan Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The Supdt. of Post Offices,
Main Post Office,
Bhiwani, Haryana
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15.06.2018 FA : 24.07.2018 SA : 25.09.2018
CPIO : 09.07.2018 &
FAO : 24.08.2018 Hearing : 22.05.2020
12.09.2018
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
Page 1 of 5
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/633738
Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Supdt. Of Post Office, Bhiwani, Haryana, heard
over the phone
ORDER
Information Sought and Brief Facts:
The appellant filed an online RTI application on 15.06.2018, seeking information as under:-
"This RTI is with regards to TD No. 31058 amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in the name of Smt. Keso Devi w/o Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, VPO Bapora, Distt. Bhiwani, done in the year 2005-06, Main Post Office, Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Bhiwani. It is intimated that Late Smt. Keso Devi was my grandmother and I received the payment of above said time deposit in the year 2014-15 vide cheque No. 901669 amounting to Rs. 36,940/- after obtaining succession certificate in my name from Civil Judge, Bhiwani. I want to know how the interest was calculated as merely Rs. 6,940/- for around 09 years on the amount of Rs. 30,000/- whereas the rate of interest at that time was 7%? If we calculate simple interest @ 7% it would be Rs. 18,900/-. Kindly intimate about the calculation of interest and clarification thereof."
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the appellant filed the First Appeal dated 24.07.2018. FAA, vide order dated 24.08.2018, directed CPIO cum SPOs, Bhiwani to re-examine the official record and send a suitable reply to the appellant.
Page 2 of 5CIC/POSTS/A/2018/633738 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by respondent. He requested to the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that requisite information has not been furnished to him by the CPIO despite of the directions issued by FAA vide order dated 24.08.2018. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provde complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the CPIO.
The respondent submitted that due information was furnished to the appellant vide reply dated 09.07.2018. The appellant, however, preferred first appeal on the ground of non- receipt of information. He further submitted that, in compliance of the order of FAA, the reply dated 09.07.2018 was once again provided to the appellant vide letter dated 12.09.2018 wherein the closing amount of TD account no. 31058 was clearly stated. He further submitted that the process of payment of remaining amount of interest will be initiated at the earliest.
The appellant contested that the letters dated 09.07.2018 and 12.09.2018 were never received by him.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant vide his RTI application is seeking redressal of his grievance. At the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority Page 3 of 5 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/633738 or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. Nonetheless, an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant by the respondent.
The Commission, further, observes that as per the respondent a reply in response to the RTI application was provided to the appellant. However, as per the appellant, no reply in response to the RTI application was received. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to resend a copy of the CPIO's reply dated 09.07.2018 and 12.09.2018 along with the proof of dispatch with respect to the dispatch made earlier including the Registered Post tracking number to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 22.05.2020 Page 4 of 5 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/633738 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Director Postal Services Department of Posts, The Postmaster General, Haryana Circle, Ambala -133001
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), The Supdt. of Post, Offices Main Post Office, Department of Posts, Clock Tower Chowk, Bhiwani Circle Bhiwani, Haryana
3. Shri Pawan Sharma Page 5 of 5