Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/X/09/00158
Dated March 26, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr.Basudev Padhi
Name of the Public Authority : Dept. of Post, Cuttack
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.2.11.07 with the CPIO, DoP, Cuttack.
He requested for the following information:
i) Attested photocopy of the written statement of all the villagers
of the Nandigram village as recorded by the Inquiry Authority on
23.2.07.
ii) Attested photocopy of the written statement of Shri K.C.Padhi
GDS MD/MC of 23.2.07.
iii) Attested photocopy of the written statement of Shri Duryodhan
Lenka GDSBPM Nandigram on 23.2.07.
iv) Shri K.C.Padhi GDSMD/MC in his written statement reportedly
stated that he had intimated the fact of receipt of registered letter in
the residence of the applicant. To intimate the name of the person in
the residence of the applicant to whom the fact was intimated. All
documentary evidences may be supplied.
v) Above inquiry report shows that neither the applicant nor his
family members were examined in this connection. He stated that the
person in the residence of the applicant to whom the fact of receipt of
registered letter was intimated by Mr.K.C.Padhi GDSMD/MC was also
not examined. Intimate the reason if non-examination of all
concerned before submission of final report by the I.O
The CPIO replied on 7.11.07 stating that the information against points (i) to
(iv) cannot be supplied as it is personal information, the disclosure of which
has no relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and with regard to point (v)
he mentioned that the applicant is only seeking the opinion of the CPIO and,
therefore, this information cannot be supplied as it does not fall under the
definition of information given u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the
reply, the Applicant filed his first appeal dt.30.11.07 with the Appellate
Authority appealing against the biased decision of the CPIO and reiterating his
request for the information. He also stated that the same CPIO had supplied
him with the inquiry report but when he sought the relevant documents on
the basis of which the report was prepared, the same were denied to him. As
per information sought against points (i) to (iv) being denied u/s 8(i)(j) of the
RTI Act, he stated that the required information relates to the documentary
evidence on the basis of which the inquiry authority has certified about the
true functioning of the government machinery. Hence, there is nothing to
warrant invasion of privacy of any individual. The Appellate Authority replied
on 7.1.08 stating that in the first appeal, new information was sought against
Point (4)(a). With regard to Point (4)(b) of the appeal he maintained that the
information sought is personal information and is exempted from disclosure
u/s 8(i)(j) sine it has no relation to any public activity or interest. As for point
(4)(c) he stated that the Applicant has sought for the opinion of the CPIO for
which there is no provision in the Act. Aggrieved with this reply, the
Applicant filed his second appeal dt.29.12.08 before the CIC on 29.12.08.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for March 26, 2009.
3. Both the Appellant and the Respondents were absent at the hearing.
Decision
4. The Commission noted that the Second appeal has been filed after more than
11 months after receiving the first Appellate Authority’s order and holds that
it is time barred and accordingly rejects the appeal.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Mr.Basudev Padhi
AT/PO : Nandigram
PS/Via : Naugaonhat
Dist: Jagatsinghpur
2. The CPIO &
Sr.Supdt. of Post Office
Department of Posts
Cuttack South Division
Cuttack 753 001
3. Ms.Manisha Mishra
The Appellate Authority &
Director Postal Services (HQ & Mktg.)
Department of Posts
O/o Chief Post Master General
Orissa Circle
Bhubaneswar 751 001
3. Officer in charge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC