This topic is now closed to further replies.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067
22nd September, 2006
Appeal No.112 /ICPB/2006
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 â€“ Section 19.
Appellant: Shri Dhruba Charan Naik
Public authority: Department of Post, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneshwar. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices & CPIO. Shri S.K. Kamila, Director Postal Services â€“ Appellate Authority.
By an application dated 21.3.2006 addressed to the CPIO, the appellant has requested for information regarding percentage of marks obtained by the last candidate (category wise i.e. OBC/SC/ST) of selected candidates of open market for filling up vacancies of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants for the recruitment years 1994, 1995 and 1996 separately,
pertaining to Sundargarh Postal Division. It appears that the CPIO declined to furnish the information and accordingly he appealed to the AA. By a decision dated 2.5.2006, the AA directed the CPIO to furnish the information sought for by the appellant and accordingly, the CPIO furnished certain information on 9.5.2006, which according to the appellant was incomplete and therefore, he filed an appeal before the Post Master General, who has advised him that the second appeal lies before this Commission and accordingly, the appellant has filed
this appeal on 25.6.2006. Comments were called for from the CPIO in which the CPIO has furnished full information and it is also stated that similar information has been sent to the appellant. On receipt of the comments and reply, the appellant has written to the CPIO on 17.8.2006, seeking for certain clarification and endorsing a copy of the said letter, the appellant has sought time to file his rejoinder after receipt of clarifications from the CPIO.
From the reply furnished to the appellant as per the comments, I find that whatever information that the appellant had sought, the same has been furnished to the appellant. In his letter dated 17.8.2006 addressed to the CPIO, the appellant has not questioned the information
furnished but has asked for not only additional information but also raised various queries un connected with the information sought and provided. A far as this appeal is concerned, since the information sought has been provided, the appeal stands closed.
3. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
RBI sought exclusion from RTI: Govt. doesnot finance us!
The Right to Information Act (RTI) covers all bodies owned, controlled or â€˜substantially financedâ€™ by the government. Which should be clear enough, but the Reserve Bank of India didnâ€™t think so. It sought exclusion from the scanner, contending, â€œWe do not come under the Act, as we are the sole financier of the government; the government does not finance us!â€
In response, the Central Information Commission has firmly put the Bank in its place by reminding it that RBI was constituted by an Act of Parliament and was therefore squarely within the lawâ€™s purview.