Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kshitij Dutta vs Department Of Posts on 25 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/2021/613207,
          CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613232,
          CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613223,
          CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613326,
          CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613314 &
          CIC/POSTS/A/2021/614313


Kshitij Dutta                                    ......अपीलकता /Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम

1. CPIO,
   Department of Posts,
   O/o the Supdt. Of Post offices,
   RTI Cell, Ambala Division, Ambala - 133001,
   Haryana.

2. CPIO,
   Department of Posts,
   O/o the Supdt. Of Post offices,
   Kurukshetra Divison, RTI Cell,
   Kurukshetra - 136118, Haryana.

3. CPIO,
   Department of Posts,
   O/o the Supdt. Of Post offices,
   RTI Cell, Karnal Division, Karnal - 132001,
   Haryana.



                                          1
 4. CPIO,
   Department of Posts,
   O/o the Supdt. Of Post offices,
   Rohtak Division, RTI Cell, Rohtak - 124001,
   Haryana.

5. CPIO,
   Department of Posts,
   O/o the Supdt. Of Post offices,
   RTI Cell, Hisar Postal Division, Hisar - 125001,
   Haryana.

6. CPIO,
   Department of Posts,
   O/o the Supdt. Of Post offices,
   Gurgaon Division, RTI Cell, Gurgaon - 122001,
   Haryana.                                      .... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Date of Hearing                     :   22/04/2022
Date of Decision                    :   22/04/2022

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the same RTI Application.


Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

SI.No. File no. RTI         CPIO               First        FAA's        Second
                Application replied on         Appeal       order        Appeal
                dated                          dated        dated        dated
1.     613207, 01.02.2021 05.03.2021           15.03.2021   26.03.2021   08.04.2021

2.       613232     01.02.2021   25.02.2021    15.03.2021   30.03.2021   08.04.2021
3.       613223     01.02.2021   01.03.2021    15.03.2021   30.03.2021   08.04.2021
4.       613326     01.02.2021   02.03.2021    19.03.2021   05.04.2021   09.04.2021
5.       613314     01.02.2021   04.03.2021    19.03.2021   05.04.2021   09.04.2021
6.       614313     01.02.2021   24.02.2021    19.03.2021   12.04.2021   15.04.2021

                                           2
                              CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613207,
                             CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613232,
                             CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613223,
                             CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613326,
                             CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613314 &
                             CIC/POSTS/A/2021/614313

Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 01.02.2021 seeking the following information:
"As per Rule 5 of the Cable Television Network Rule 1994 as amended the registration authority in relation to a cable operator is the Head Postmaster of a Head Post office of the area within whose territorial jurisdiction the office of cable operator is situated The Local Cable Operator registration data is requested in the prescribed format from all the HO and HPO wise in soft copy under the Chief Postmaster General Haryana Circle Ambala
1. Latest Registration Number and Date of registration
2. Complete LCO registration data in the prescribed format S No., Name of the Company Person, Postal Address, Contact No., Registration No., Date of Registration, Regn Valid Upto Area of operation CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613207 The CPIO/ Respondent no. 1 furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 05.03.2021. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2021. FAA's order dated 26.03.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613232 The CPIO/Respondent no. 2 furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.02.2021. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2021. FAA's order dated 30.03.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613223 3 The CPIO/ Respondent no. 3 furnished a complete list to the appellant on 01.03.2021. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2021. FAA's order dated 30.03.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613326 The CPIO/Respondent no. 4 furnished a complete list to the appellant on 02.03.2021. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2021. FAA's order dated 05.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/613314 The CPIO/Respondent no. 5 furnished a complete list to the appellant on 04.03.2021. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2021. FAA's order dated 05.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/614313 The CPIO/Respondent no. 6 replied to the appellant on 24.02.2021 stating as follows:-
"The information sought in respect of registration of Cable TV of Gurgaon and Narnaul HPO has been provided on your email i.e [email protected]."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2021. FAA's order dated 12.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s).

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent no. 1: Vijendra Sharma, ASP & Rep. of CPIO present through audio- conference.
4
Respondent no. 2: Vikas Arora, Inspector of Post Office (IT) (SP) & Rep. of CPIO present through audio-conference.
Respondent no. 3: Rakesh Kumar, ASPOs & Rep. of CPIO present through audio- conference.
Respondent no. 4: Dinesh Kumar, ASPOs & Rep. of CPIO present through audio- conference.
Respondent no. 5: Anil, ASPO & Rep. of CPIO present through audio-conference.
Respondent no. 6: Jamwar Singh, ASPO & Rep. of CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of his RTI Applications expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that complete information of all licensed cable operators has not been provided to him till date. He prayed that Commission to direct the CPIOs' to provide complete details of all the licensed cable operators in response to RTI Applications referred herein above.
The Respondents no. 1 to 6 submitted that a reply along with relevant available information has been provided to the Appellant and no additional information is available at their end.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the replies provided by the CPIOs' as the same adequately suffices the enormous information sought by the Appellant in a desired format as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the scope and ambit of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant is advised to pursue his matter through appropriate administrative mechanism.
However, considering the prayer of the Appellant , the Respondents no. 1 to 6 are hereby directed individually to recheck their office records to ascertain the availability of relevant additional information, if any in response to the instant RTI Application (referred herein above) pertaining to their office and provide the 5 same, free of cost to the Appellant. In the event, no additional information is found available in their office records then a revised reply intimating this fact of non-availability in writing be provided to the Appellant by each of the Respondents in response to respective RTI Applications.
The aforesaid direction should be complied by each of the Respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6