Information regarding the reasons for returning of his two letters, name & address of the postman who was supposed to deliver the aforesaid letters were sought - CIC: Provide the name of the postman who was demarcated to deliver the articles in that area
1. The appellant sought information regarding reasons for non-delivery and returning of his two letters sent on 17.08.2016, name & address of the postman who was supposed to deliver the aforesaid letters etc. on two points. The CPIO on 29.09.2016, stated that reason for non-delivery of articles have been mentioned on the article by the postman of the delivery post office and no enquiry was made in this regard. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant filed first appeal and the FAA stated that reply given by the CPIO was as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the above responses, the appellant approached this Commission in second appeal.
2. The appellant contended that reply given by the CPIO is incomplete and unsatisfactory. The respondent authority submitted that reason for non-delivery of the appellant’s two letters mentioned above has been provided vide their letter dated 29.09.2016. He further explained that since the addressee was not available those letters could not be delivered and there was no investigation was conducted in this regard and the same was informed to the appellant.
3. Upon perusal of the records and submissions made by the parties, the Commission finds that name of the postman who was supposed to deliver appellant’s letters has not been provided by the respondent authority. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent authority to provide name of the postman who was demarcated to deliver the articles in that particular zone/circle/area, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Navaratan Mal Jain v. PIO, Department of Postsin CIC/POSTS/A/2017/194596, Date of Decision – 16.03.2018