Central Information CommissionMrvibha Chaudhary vs Department Of Posts on 1 October, 2015CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Club Building (Near Post Office)
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                   Tel: +91-11-26101592

                                                           File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002304/8736
                                                                              01 October 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                               :     Dr. Vibha Chaudhary,
                                              Flat No - J -1, Rishi Avenue,
                                              Aggarsain Nagar, Rishikesh,
                                              Distt - Dehradun - 249202,
                                              Uttarakhand

Respondent                              :     CPIO / Supdt of Post Offices,
                                              Department of Post
                                              O/o Supdt of Post Offices,
                                              Navi Mumbai Postal Division,
                                              Panvel - 410206

RTI application filed on                :     10/02/2014
PIO replied on                          :     18/03/2014
First appeal filed on                   :     18/03/2014
First Appellate Authority order         :     17/04/2014
Second Appeal dated                     :     17/09/2014

Information sought:The appellant has sought the following information:-1. Is the delivery of the Speed Post no. EV408665360IN was made to proper address.2. If yes, then provide copy of receipt from concerned person of SBI Life insurance at above
      address with name, contact no. Mobile no. receipt no, office seal and date etc.,3. If package was not delivered at exact address then what kind of action may be taken
      against the responsible person of postal services?4. Provide the details of responsible employees in wrong deliver of above items.5. How much maximum compensation can I claim from postal department due to delay &
      wrong delivery? Reply in keeping view of Rs. 49,900/- & Rs. 9,98,000/- loss to me due to
      not delivery within time.6. Where should I contact for claiming the compensation as desired in above point 5. How
      much time it needs in settlement of this kind of problems.7. What should I do for ensuring the departmental actions against the responsible persons?8. What is economical process to obtain the information within short period at low cost and in
      effective manner? Follow those in replying to me also.Grounds for the Second Appeal:The CPIO has not provided the desired information.Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:The following were presentPage 1 of 2Appellant: Mr. Netra Pal Singh appellant's representative through TC M: 09720171612
Respondent: Mr. Ratnakar Toparae CPIO's representative through TC M: 07350667585
       The appellant's representative stated that the FAA in his order dated 17/04/2014 has noted
that the reply was given after a delay of 7 days and as per the provisions of theRTI Acta penalty
of Rs.1750/- (@ Rs.250/- per day) should be levied on the CPIO and paid to the appellant. The
CPIO's representative explained that the RTI application was filed online by the appellant with the
nodal CPIO at Delhi but they could not access the application as the login ID and password was
not known. He submitted that he had to contact the RTI Cell at New Delhi for obtaining the ID and
password which resulted in the small delay of 7 days. He vehemently pleaded that there was no
intent whatsoever to delay or deny any information to the appellant.Decision notice:The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 09/01/2012 (LPA 764/2011Ankur
Muteja vs. Delhi University) has clarified that:"10.................................... There is no provision in the Act for the payment of
      penalty or any part thereof if imposed, to the complainant........................"From the foregoing it is clear that the penalty, if any, imposed on the CPIO cannot be paid
to the appellant. As regards the delay, the CPIO's representative has explained that the user ID
and password was not known to them and they had to contact the RTI Cell Delhi for obtaining the
ID and password to access the online application filed by the appellant, this process resulted in
delay of 7 days. Thus, in this case it cannot be said that the CPIO delayed the reply "without any
reasonable cause". There is also nothing to establish malafide on the part of the CPIO. Imposition
of penalty, therefore, would not be justified.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.BASANT SETH
                                                                      Information Commissioner


Authenticated true copy:(R. L. Gupta)
Dy. Registrar/Designated OfficerPage 2 of 2