S. Muthumalai v. Cpio

1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 21.05.2018, seeking certified copies of the delivery sheet/copy of the article/registered & speed post letter as mentioned below (copies of the letter dated 05.01.2018 are enclosed) along with date and time and name of the postman who delivered the same to the authorities concerned.

2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 20.06.2018, denied information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.06.2018. FAA, vide order dated 19.07.2018, stated that the information sought for is not clear. He further requested the appellant to provide the particular article number in order to enable the respondent to provide the delivery status along with detailed address of the sender and receiver of the article.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

3. The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

4. The appellant submitted that as per the letter dated 05.01.2018, his RTI dated 01.01.2018 was transferred by ASPO's (HQ), Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair to Chief Judicial Magistrate, District & Session Courts, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair. In respect of the same, the appellant had filed RTI application in question, seeking certified copies of the delivery sheet/copy of the article/registered & speed post letter vide which the aforesaid RTI dated 01.01.2018 was transferred. The CPIO, however, with malafide intent, denied him requisite information by wrongly invoking Section 8(1)(j). He further submitted that since the information sought pertains to the transfer of the appellant's RTI application, there is no question of disclosure of the personal information of any third party whatsoever. He further submitted that FAA, vide order dated 19.07.2018, asked the appellant to provide the particular article number. However, since the aforesaid letter was transferred by the respondent, the appellant is not in possession of the article number.

5. The respondent submitted that as per Rule 17 of Chapter 1, Postal Manual, Vol. VI, the information sought by the appellant cannot be made available to him as no person is entitled to examine the records of any article that was not addressed to him, even though the same was posted by him. He further submitted that the delivery sheet, as sought by the appellant, contains details of a minimum 10 -12 articles, thus the same cannot be furnished to the appellant.

DECISION

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission, further, observes that the CPIO, vide reply dated 20.06.2018, denied information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, it is noted that the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act can only be claimed when the information sought relates to the personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. However, in this matter, the information sought does not relate to the personal information of third parties. Thus, the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act would not be applicable in the present case. With regards to the respondent's submission concerning a delivery sheet consisting of several article numbers, the Commission observes that denying the true spirit of RTI Act would not be justified when the intended objective can be fully achieved by adopting safeguards. Further, with respect to FAA's assertion that appellant failed to furnish specific article number, the Commission agrees with the appellant that since the letter in question was transferred by the respondent, it is not plausible for the appellant to be in possession of the article number. The Commission, therefore, considering the above noted facts, along with the fact that RTI Act supersedes any departmental rules, directs the respondent to furnish due information to the appellant, after redacting information pertaining to other article numbers as visible on the relevant delivery sheet, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties and hence, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The above direction of the Commission shall be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

9. The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.