Central Information Commission
Shanku Das vs Department Of Posts on 4 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/120573
Shanku Das ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of Posts,
Silchar ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.08.2022 FA : 12.09.2022 SA : 29.04.2023
CPIO : 17.08.2022 &
FAO : 17.10.2022 Hearing : 28.10.2024
22.11.2022
Date of Decision: 04.11.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:
With due regards, I beg to state that a speed post bearing No.ES917491762IN was supposed to be delivered at my home address but was returned back with comment "Address cannot be located" as is visible in the Tracking system of speed post. Here, it is to mention that the Speed post was posted with proper address and the Post Office has delivered several articles in the same address earlier. However, what happed in the instant case is not clear to me.Page 1 of 4
On being enquired in Silchar Head Post Office, office staff revealed that Address might not have been correct and was send back.
As such, I request your goodself to provide me information by replying my few queries under the provisions of the RTI Act.2005 as below: -
(i) When was the speed post bearing No.ES91749L762[N received by your post office.
(ii) What was the address mentioned in the speed post bearing No.ES91749L762IN
(iii) Who was being directed to deliver the speed post bearing No.ES917491762IN
(iv) Where was the speed post bearing No.ES91749L762IN being directed to deliver.
(v) What was the cause of not delivering the speed post bearing No.ES917491762IN.
(vi) When was the speed post bearing No.ES91749L762IN send back.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.08.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The RTI Act does not cast on the Public Authority any obligation to answer queries as in this case, in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to questions with prefixes, such as why, what, when and whether."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.10.2022 directed the CPIO & SPOs, Cachar Division, Silchar to supply fresh Reply based on the mode of query in RTI Appeal dated 12.09.2022 to the applicant. Subsequently, The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1.Date on which the speed post article was received by Silchar HO = 17.03.2022.Page 2 of 4
2.Address as mentioned in the speed post = Not available in material form at the Silchar HO.
3.Cause of not delivering = not available in the material form at Silchar HO.
4.date and cause sending back = Returned to sender by Silchar HO on 17.03.2022 as it could not be delivered to the addressee.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 29.04.2023.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kaustabh Choudhury, Assistant Superintendent of Post, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the FAA's order dated 17.10.2022, a point-wise reply or information had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 22.11.2022.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that in compliance of the FAA's order, a point-wise reply or information has been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 22.11.2022. Further, in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 04.11.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Cachar Division, Silchar - 788001
2. Shanku Das Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)