Central Information Commission
Mr. Milan vs Department Of Posts on 30 November, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/POSTS/A/2021/652715
Mr. Milan .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Post-India, Department of Posts-India,
Peddapalli Division, Peddapalli-505172
(Telangana)
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.08.2021
CPIO replied on : 15.09.2021
First appeal filed on : 16.09.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 04.10.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 10.11.2021
Date of Hearing : 29.11.2022
Date of Decision : 29.11.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 4
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 15.09.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 16.09.2021.
• The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2021 held as under:Page 2 of 4
• Written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 28.11.2022 as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present: -
Appellant: Absent Page 3 of 4 Respondent: Mr. Harman Singh Gill, Inspector of Post.
The Respondent submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant within stipulated time frame. He stated that outcome of the enquiry has already been intimated to the Appellant. He further submitted that he would abide by the order of the Commission if any.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. No legal infirmity is found in the response furnished by the Respondent. Moreover, the Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear and buttress his case despite service of hearing notice. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4