The court established the principle of natural justice requiring equal treatment in access to information.

O R D E R

FACTS

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points, as under:-

The CPIO vide letter dated 20.12.2018 provided reply on point No. 01 and on Points No. 02 and 03, informed the Appellant that the information is not available in their office. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 13.02.2019, upheld the reply furnished by the PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information, impose penalty and compensation to him.

HEARING: Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. S.C. Kapoor, through AC;

Respondent : Mr. Pushpaj Kumar, ASPO, through AC.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the hearing of the matter was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that he is a Retd. Sr. Accounts Officer from the Dept of Post and that no clear and satisfactory response had been provided to him till date. The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that the information as available on record with them had already been furnished to the Appellant and that no further information in this regard is available with them. Upon being enquired by the Commission on his Locus standi on seeking such information, the Appellant informed the Commission that he needs to deposit money amounting to Rs. 2,42,000/- (Approx) in Delhi, GPO for PLI which was denied on the grounds that the demonetized money is not allowed. Therefore, he stated he seeks a clear date that until when the demonetized notes were accepted by the Respondents for PLI. The Respondent asserted that an apt response had been given to the Appellant that vide Notification dated 18.11.2016, no demonetized notes can be accepted against PLI w.e.f 09.11.2016.

The Appellant vehemently denied the assertion made by the Respondent and submitted that the Delhi, GPO, had informed the Appellant that they had accepted the demonetized notes till 30.12.2016, and further informed the Commission that a Consumer Complaint had also been filed by him against the Respondent in this regard. In reply, the Respondent again remained firm to his earlier reply and submitted that the Delhi, GPO might have acted ultra vires the notification issued by the PLI Directorate and that they are responsible only for the furnishing of information as per the records available with the PLI Directorate which had already been furnished. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant is trying to redress his grievance through the mechanism of RTI Act, 2005, and that he must approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of the same.

The Commission observed that the principle of parity would be applicable to the case if GPO, Delhi had indeed accepted demonetized currency till 30.12.2016. The Appellant asserted he had furnished proof to support his claim that crores of demonetised notes had been accepted by GPO Delhi after 18.12.2016.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties at length, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply had been furnished by the Respondent at their level but the reply doesn't address the Appellant's queries at the departmental level.

The Commission notes that the evidence furnished by the Appellant clearly indicates that there were Post offices in the department where demonetised currency notes had been accepted beyond the date mentioned by the Respondent and the amount in question ran into crores of rupees. This indicates disparity on the part of the department in dealing with the same matter and therefore needs to be looked again from the lens of natural justice to ensure that the Appellant is not denied something that was furnished to others. In fact, this a matter of serious concern and