Appellant: RTI application was wrongly returned on the ground that the IPO has expired - PIO: department has accepted the mistake & apologized - CIC: the respondent should look into the matter & put in place a credible system for disposing RTI application
The appellant has sought the following information:-
1. Inform validity if IPOs and procedure for re-validation.
2. Provide a copy of extract of notification/manual that mentions validity of IPOs and procedure for re-validation.
3. Inform reason why validity is not mentioned on the document.
4. Inform reason why validity of IPOs is not mentioned on India Post website.
5. Inform if IPO is a negotiable instrument.
6. Inform if validity must be legally mentioned on a negotiable instrument.
7. Inform if non-mention of validity on IPOs can be source of inconvenience and harassment to citizen.
8. Inform if likely-hood of such inconvenience and harassment in far-flung corners of the country is very high if it has happened in Central District New Delhi.
9. Inform procedure to compensate citizens for such inconvenience and harassment.
10. Inform steps now being taken to eliminate such inconvenience and harassment to citizen due to lack of clarity on validity of IPOs.
11. Inform if validity of IPOs will now be mentioned on the document.
12. Inform if validity of IPOs will now be displayed on prominent notice-boards in post offices all over the country.
13. Inform time period indication when the changes will be introduced.
14. Provide me a copy of minutes or other document which mentions changes being introduced.
15. Inform remedy with citizen to verify availability of postal orders of any denomination if repeatedly refused at any post office.
16.Central Receipts section in basement of Dak Bhavan New Delhi- 110001 has adopted a practice of stamping copy of submitted document, but receipt/entry number was not being issued there and then on grounds that staff is busy or unavailable, and will make entries in bulk later. Inform from Citizens charter or equivalent document, time to be taken to allot entry number to received post, and remedy to citizen if entry number is not allotted in that time.
17. My ‘aadhar’ card has been generated by UIDAI long back but postal department has not delivered it. Inform status of delivery, when it will be delivered, reasons for delay, and procedure for compensation for delay. Particulars are: Name: Sanjay Verma, Enrolment no. 2022/01137/19434, date: 04/07/2012, time 11:42:59.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. S. Verma through VC
Respondent: Mr. Raj Kumar CPIO & Mr. Charu Mitra
The CPIO stated that the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 19/04/2013, as available on record, has been provided vide letters 21/05/2013 & 30/07/3013 and the reply dated 21/05/2013 has been upheld by the FAA vide orders dated 17/07/2013. The appellant stated that his RTI application was wrongly returned by the PIO on the ground that the IPO has expired. The CPIO stated that the department has accepted the mistake and apologized to the appellant. He further stated that the delinquent employee has expired. The appellant suggested that it may be appropriate if the postal authorities stamp the validity of the IPO on the face of the instrument. He further stated that his RTI application was lost while transferring to another section which indicates that proper systems are not in place.
The information has been provided. As regards the appellant’s suggestion for stamping the validity of the instrument on the face of IPO the same may be placed before the competent authority for consideration. As regards loss of appellant’s application, it appears that the postal authorities have not made proper arrangement for receipt and processing of RTI applications. Hence, the respondent should look into the matter and put in place a credible system for disposing of RTI applications in a timely manner. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. S. Verma v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/002388 + 002389/6125