Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/09/00166
Dated April 17, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr.B.G.Deshkar
Name of the Public Authority : O/o DG of Audit, Post &
Telecommunication, Nagpur
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.15.12.08 with the CPIO, O/o Dir. Of
Audit, Post & Telecom, Nagpur He wanted to know whether the letter No.TM-
12/GMT Latur/9 dt.6.10.05 issued by the Sr.Audit Officer Shri G.C.Sethy at
Camp Latur and addressed to SAO (OAD) O/o Director of Audit, Post &
Telecom Nagpur was issued by the officer who signed it and whether it was
correctly received by the officer to whom it was addressed and properly filed
for record. He requested for an attested copy of the same. The CPIO, N.
Delhi replied on 9.1.09 requesting the Applicant to pay the RTI fee through
the prescribed mode of payment such as Bankers cheque, Demand Draft,
Indian Postal Order and Cash. The Applicant wrote again to the PIO on
7.2.09 stating that the CPIO, O/o DG of Audit, Post & Telecommunication,
New Delhi has no locus standi in his case and therefore has no right to reply
to his RTI query. He also stated that the CPIO’s reply dt.9.1.09 amounts to
deemed rejection. Also, aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the Applicant
filed a complaint dt.7.2.09 before the CIC. In his complaint he stated that the
application was rejected by the CPIO who was not authorized as the
application was not directed to him, on a not so valid a ground when the
cheque issued could be encashed at Delhi or Nagpur .
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for April 17, 2009.
3. Mr.Subu R, Dy. Director & CPIO and Mr.Sharique Alam, SO represented the
Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the cheque sent by the Complainant was
rejected since it was a personal cheque and not sent as per the prescribed
mode as given in the RTI Act and that a letter was sent to Nagpur Branch on
18.2.09 requesting the office to return the cheque to the Complainant, while
endorsing a copy of the letter to him(Complainant). He also explained that as
per the policy laid down in letter dt.20.8.08 from the O/o CAG, there is only
one CPIO for DG (A), P&T for Delhi and for all branch offices who is based at
Delhi, and that it was well within the CPIO’s right to provide the information
sought by the Complainant and that the complaint that CPIO Delhi has no
locus standi, therefore has no merit. He also added that information against
the RTI request was provided on 16.3.09 after receiving the RTI Fee in the
prescribed mode on 25.2.09.
6. In view of the explanation given by the CPIO with regard to why the fees
paid by the Complainant was returned and his locus standi in this particular
case and the fact that information has been provided, the Commission finds
no merit in the complaint.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr.B.G.Deshkar
Bldg. No.21, B-Wing
Gurukrupa CHS
Flat No.205-206
Tilak Nagar
Chembur West
Mumbai 400 089
2. Mr.Subu R
The PIO &
Dy. Director (Hq)
O/o Director General of Audit,
Post & Telecommunications
Sham Nath Marg
Near Old Secretariat
Delhi 110 402
3. Officer in charge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC