ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Please provide me the certified copy of stipulations/laid down norms/rules and regulations basing on which simple withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- was denied when the account was revived on 23-07-2021 enabling me to proceed for deficiency of service under CP Act.

(ii) Please provide the documents that are necessary for revival and the knowledge levels of Siripudi incharge to provide those documents to educate villagers.

(iii) Please provide the reasons for not accepting Registered posts of such RTI Applications at SIRIPUDI and the date from which post office were not booking the registered envelopes, total number of days and asking citizens to go to Pittalavanipalem SPO for registering the envelopes when there is no Public transport and commutation facility.

(iv) Whether the post office can not find alternates like giving a dummy receipt by accepting envelope, sending it by whatsapp to SPO Pittalavanipalem, delivering envelope in the evening and collecting bonafide receipt by Siripudi for delivery next day (The usual procedure followed in many branches when hub is not being connected) instead of asking a 70 year to go to 6 KM PV Palem SO by walk to handover and get receipt.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Point No. (i) & (ii): Please refer to POSB CBS Manual (Corrected upto 31.12.2021) Rule 63, Revival of silent account which is available in the URL https://www.indiapost.gov.in/VAS/Pages/RH/RTI-Manual-5.aspx for information regarding norms/rules and regulations.

Point No. (iii): Facility of booking registered posts is available at Siripudi Post office.

Point No. (iv): As and When article is booked in RICT machine receipt will be generated.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.11.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 15.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Dissatisfied with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.01.2023.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Karunakar Babu, Superintendent of Post, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought copy of rules and norms bases on which withdrawal of Rs 1000/- was denied when the account was revived on 23.07.2021 etc. He further submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a point-wise response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 09.11.2022, wherein, they had provided a link w.r.t information sought on point no. 1 & 2 of the RTI application. 8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 09.11.2022. Regarding points no. 3 and 4 of the RTI application, it is further observed that the appellant has sought reasons and clarification, which were not covered within the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent has provided the available information to the appellant. In this regards, the observation passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Goa in Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) may be relied upon: <br