A post on 19th November 2014 is RTI Application dtd. 03/09/2014. Irrelevant response of CPIO compelled me to Appeal before First Appellate Authority of Department of Post. The appeal and order of First Appellate Authority is posted on 20th November 2014. Here is a response from Department of Posts in compliance of the order of First Appellate Authority. It is followed by a 2nd Appeal before Central Information Commission (CIC)
"
No
: CR-3/RTI-269/2014 dated at Delhi-110051 the Dated 07-11-2014
Sub: Information under RTI
Act 2005 – case of Sh. S.K. Virmani
The
1st appellate authority Shri Adnan Ahmed, DPS (O), % The Chief
Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi-110001 vide his office letter No.
PG/RIA/B-II-312/2014 dated 30.10.2014 has ordered to CPIO for providing
complete information to RTI Applicant.
As
per office record article u/r was received on 26.08.2014 at Laxmi Nagar PO as
missent and dispatch to AMPC New Delhi-110037 on 28.08.2014, but this office is
unable to ascertain the correct reason for its return to other office being
misspent article.
You
are requested to supply the photo copy of envelop of the said article to access
the complete information in this regard as the correct reason/remark appear to
be given on envelope of the said article at the time its return.
Delhi East Division
Delhi-110051
"
Copy of 2nd Appeal before Central Information Commission
18/11/2014
Sub: Second
appeal in respect of my RTI application dated 03/09/2014 in respect of Speed
Post Docket No. ED342229883IN - Non-supply of information despite FAA order
dtd. 30/10/2014
References:
Sl. No.
|
Description
|
Page No.
|
1
|
RTI Application dated 03/09/2014
|
1
|
2.
|
CPIO Ref. No. RTI/NDCD/273/14-15 dated 29/09/2014
|
2-3
|
3.
|
CPIO Letter No. CR-3/RTI-269/2014 dated 14/10/2014
|
4
|
4.
|
FA dated 23/10/2014
|
5-6
|
5.
|
FAA Order No. PG/RIA/B-II-312/2014 dated 30/10/2014
|
7
|
6.
|
DOP Letter No. CR-3/RTI-269/2014 dated 07/11/2014
|
8
|
7.
|
Telephonic call from Mr. Sudhir Sharma on 03/11/2014
from Telephone No. 011-22376395
|
Dear Sir,
1.
I have submitted an application
under RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, Department
of Post, New Delhi as referred at Sl. No. 1 above.
2.
CPIO at Sl. No. 2 and 3
responded with their letter as referred at Sl. No. 2 and 3 above. However, no
relevant information has been received except partial information in respect of
point No. 1 (a).
3.
Finding no relevant responses
as sought from CPIO vide RTI application dtd. 03/09/2014, the First Appeal was
preferred before First Appellate
Authority at Sl. No. 4 above.
4.
First Appellate Authority had concurred
with the contentions raised by the applicant and has ordered accordingly. The
relevant points of the order are quoted below:-
“Sh.
S.K. Virmani preferred present appeal dated 23.10.2014 and appeals that; there
is no relation between the statement of CPIO/SSPOs, East Dn and what he has
sought for in point no 1 (b) to (e). And he has requested for photocopies of
all the documents sought in his RTI application in respect of point no (b) to
(e). As the information has been provided to him after the stipulated time,
hence no additional fee is payable towards photocopy charges as per the
provisions of RTI Act 2005.”
“The
Undersigned has examined the initial RTI application and both the CPIOs reply
and present appeal and is of the view that, the CPIO has not provided the available
information to the appellant. Hence, the CPIO/SSPOs, Delhi East Dn,
Delhi-110051 is directed to re-examine the case and provide the information
sought for and documents to the appellant within a fortnight positively.”
5.
The applicant received a
telephone call on 03/11/2014 from one Mr. Sudhir Sharma stating to be from
Krishna Nagar, Post Office on the mobile of the applicant from a number
011-22376395 who sought additional information from the applicant. Even though
the said information as sought by Mr. Sudhir Sharma was not relevant to be
asked, the applicant still provided the information and confirmed that Docket
No. of the article which is a subject matter of RTI Application pertain to an
article consigned for “Bombay Fashion,
F-147B, Nangal Bazar, Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi”. The first
reaction to the provisioning of the details of the consignee was that the
consignee falls in their jurisdiction. Even though the CPIO had responded vide
his letter dated 14/10/2014 stating the article was received as missent, he
confirmed that the article pertain to his jurisdiction. The applicant requested
to supply the photocopies of all the documents which are relevant to the said
docket no., details of the Post Man and articles delivery chart report of all
the dockets meant for delivery on 27/08/2014 including that of the said article
no. under reference. As stated above, the First Appellate Authority has also been
of the view that CPIO has not provided the available information to the
applicant i.e. photocopies of all the records mentioned at 1(b) to (e) of my
RTI Application dated 03/09/2014.
6.
It
seems that CPIO/ and the concerned officials are trying to hide the crucial
information and hence have sent letter dated 07/11/2014 asking for photocopy of
the envelope of the said article despite conveying the information about
consignee through telephonic discussion on 03/11/2014. The applicant tried to
contact Mr. Sudhir Sharma on telephone no. 011-22376395 on 17th and 18th
November, 2014 and a minimum of 40 attempts must have been made to contact him
on the above dates but none of the call was picked up.
7.
While
I have stated the address of the consignee, seeking copy of the envelope has no
meaning or of relevancy to the information sought. The envelope might have been
stating the reason of return of the article but it is also a fact that I have
no where sought the reason of return of the article in the present RTI
application under reference and hence seeking copy of the envelope and then expressing
inability “to ascertain the correct
reason for its return to other office being misspent article” is to mislead
the applicant and other departmental officials. When the Department of Posts
has already been intimated the details of the consignee and consignee falling
in the same jurisdiction, the Department of Posts should have identified the
name of the Post Man on duty to that area and who ight have been given the number
of articles for delivery between 26th and 28th August,
2014 including that of 27th August 2014 being crucial date. After
identification of the name of the Post Man (even though seeking the name of the
Post Man was also a subject matter of information sought by the applicant at
point no. 1(b)), the Department of Post should have been able to retrieve
copies of all reports including that of articles delivery chart report (where
the signatures of recipients are taken) including all the articles handed over
to him for delivery on those three days. The purpose of seeking copy of the
envelope is of no meaning to the context of RTI application and moreover the
envelope is a crucial document to prove possible nexus of the Postal Department.
It is also pertinent to thought process as to how and on what basis and records;
the CPIO responded to RTI application that the article was missent. Was it a
casual furnishing of information under RTI Act 2005? Let those documents be also placed on the
table and shared with the Applicant.
8.
In
view of the points as stated above, I appeal Second Appellate Authority to
kindly arrange for the requisite information as per my RTI Application dated
03/09/2014 including supply of the articles delivery report of the postman on
duty with the concerned area of 26th , 27th and 28th August, 2014 as per points 1 (b) to 1
(e) of my RTI application.
9.
A
copy of the 2nd Appeal is being sent to CPIO with a request that all
connected documents be kept under safe custody till disposal of 2nd
Appeal. It is pertinent to state that the period of fortnight as per FAA order
is already over and DoP officials are trying to waste time and energy in
diverting the subject.
Non-supply of
information has already caused me to incur an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards
postage, secretarial, legal and stationary expense which need to be considered
for reimbursement. It is also beyond doubt that the information is not being
provided intentionally diverting the attention by irrelevant reasoning, the
penalty as provided under RTI Act may be imposed. 
No comments:
Post a Comment