Central Information Commission
Mrk V V Ramana Murthy vs Department Of Posts on 9 April, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000588/4884
09 April 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. K. V. V. Ramana Murthy
GDS BPM
Kanavaram BO
A/w GSL Medical College (SO),
EG Dt.- 533296, A. P.
Respondent : CPIO & Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Posts
Rajahmundry Division,
Rajahmundry - 533101
RTI application filed on : 10/02/2012
PIO replied on : 19/03/2012
First appeal filed on : 13/04/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 16/05/2012
Second Appeal dated : 07/02/2013
Information sought:
The applicant wants the photocopies of the answer paper of the selected candidates of post man written exam (paper A - making entries MS 27, paper B - Arithmetic and paper C- English & Telugu Dictation) held on 06/03/11.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. K. V. V. Ramana Murthy through VC Respondent: Mr. S S V Prasad CPIO through VC The CPIO stated that the information sought by the appellant comprises of 128 pages and he has only 12 staff in his office and taking photocopies will make the system unworkable as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The appellant pleaded that it is extremely important for him to obtain the information and the RTI Act clearly stipulates a fee of Rs.2/- per page for supplying photocopies which he is willing to pay. He further emphasized that taking 128 pages of photocopy is in no way going to cause undue strain on the public authority.Page 1 of 2
Decision notice:
The CPIO's argument that providing photocopies of 128 pages would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority is untenable; more so, as there are 12 employees working under the CPIO who can easily assist him in providing the information. Besides, the appellant is prepared to pay the prescribed charges of Rs. 256/- (@ Rs.2/- per page) hence, there is no legitimate ground to deny the information, which should be provided to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2