CIC - permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records & also allow him to take 10 photocopies free of cost - CIC: the PIO who dealt with the application has since retired from service; Department to compensate the applicant by an amount of Rs. 2500/-
The applicant has sought the following information regarding his two speed post no.’s ED900478353IN & ED900478855IN:-
I. Letter speed post No. ED900478356IN was received at the office of CPMG and the time taken for transportation and delivery of the letter was four days only. Then, (A) the reason for returning another letter speed post no. ED900478855IN and (B) justification of the time for one month for delivery of returned letter taken by PO Najafgarh may please be intimated to me. (The returned letter reached the SPO Najafgarh on 29.05.2012 which was delivered at my address on 28.06.2012. Furthermore, a fake report has been appended in the tracking detail i.e. on 26.06.2012, “Delivery attempted: Door locked-intimated served.” Item/letter is shown delivered on 27.6.2012 in the tracking detail, however in fact the same has been delivered on 28.6.2012). Track detail report attached for perusal.
II. A copy of the intimation purported to have been served upon me and a copy of the original delivery report of the letter having recipient’s (i.e. mine) signatures dated 27.6.2012 as shown in the tracking detail may please be supplied to me.
III. The kind of action against the responsible for delay of one month for delivery of a speed post letter within the own jurisdiction of PO Najafgarh, which the authorities concerned of Postal Department, will initiate may also be intimated to me.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Dr. R. S. Dikshit
Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Chawla CPIO’s representative
The appellant stated that the information requested by him in his RTI application dated 16/07/2012 (which the department claims to have received on 19/07/2012) was provided vide letter dated 05/09/2012 (i.e. after 48 days) and the same was received by him on 14/09/2012 thereby indicating that there was delay even in the dispatch of the reply. He further pointed out that the CPIO in his reply dated 05/09/2012 had given a wrong bar code number and the information relating to item (ii) was not provided. The appellant pleaded that penal proceedings should be initiated against the CPIO for the delay in providing the reply. The CPIO’s representative fairly admitted that there was a delay in providing the reply and informed that the then CPIO Mr. Anand Prakash has since retired from service. He further stated that he will allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application and take whatever further information/documents he needs.
The CPIO is directed to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application dated 16/07/2012 and also allow him to take photocopies/extracts there from, free of cost, upto 10 pages within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. From the foregoing it is apparent that the appellant did not receive the information timely and the CPIO who dealt with his application has since retired from service. For the inconvenience caused to him, he deserves to be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act we direct the Department to compensate him by an amount of Rs. 2500/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. Accordingly, the CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Dr. R. S. Dikshit v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000591/4834