RTI reply through Registered Post AD or Speed Post is what the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission has been insisting. The reply through ordinary mail should not be resorted too. Neither there should be compulsion to RTI Applicant to collect the information from the Public Offices.

In the recent order by Karnataka Information Commission, in the case “Sri M. S. Kumaraswamy vs. PIO & Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Whitefield Sub-division, Bangalore”, noted that “the Respondent has now provided the information which has been handed over to the unauthorized person without obtaining the acknowledgement. Commission noted that in several instances the officers and officials of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike have handed over the information to the unauthorized persons other than the applicants or to the authorized persons. Further, the Commission has already stated that there is no need to applicants to go over to the Government offices and the Public Information Officer / public authority should send the information either through the speed post or RPAD. This should be scrupulously followed.”

Earlier CIC has already ordered in the decision as far as 31st December 2008 that:

“There have been instances where the Appellants have complained that they had not received the reply sent by the Respondents. In fact, yesterday too in a case dealing with the Railways (Nos. CIC/OK/C/2008/273 & 274) there was a similar complaint and the Respondents replied that they had sent the reply through ordinary mail. The Commission directs them to ensure that replies to all RTI-applications are henceforth sent by speed post/registered post.”

RTI reply through Registered Post AD or Speed Post

As per the forum post here, Sh. G.L.N. Prasad states that “Act stipulates that the Onus of proof that information was provided rests on PIO and this burden compels them to send communications only through Regd., Post.”

On the reaction to PIO sending reply by ordinary post, Sh sharadphadke states that:

“In one RTI to Bombay High Court, though a stamped envelop was sent for information they put same amount of stamps back side. i.e. duplication in stamps. First appeal on the same subject was passed after reminder and by ordinary post.”

“Even god will not be able to put we Indians on track, there will be something missing.”

RTI reply through Registered Post AD or Speed PostThe Activist have noted that there is no Office Memorandum by Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) regarding RTI reply through Registered Post AD or Speed Post. Sh NARAYAN DAS in the forum post here has stated that “I have requested to DoPT to issue a proper OM in this respect to all central and state offices on 19.08.2013 with ref. to cic decision but no action taken in this respect.”

What do you think? Should the RTI reply through Registered Post AD or Speed Post be the norm? Post your views in the forum here!

Join the Conversation


Add to Story

  1. I have filed more than 100 applications under the RTI Act and the responses I have got, and more importantly the responses I never got, have confirmed one thing- that most of our public servants, including the information commissioners are traitors of the highest order. The law has been totally subverted by these ICs and … the judiciary! The judiciary has preposterously misused the provision of competent authorities to charge exorbitant fees, cost and even charge the applicant for 1st appeal which is actually an opportunity given to the public authority to correct the mistakes of its PIO!

  2. I have seen one of the following communication available on NET. Pls check & do the needful

    Friday, May 28, 2010
    Payment of fee under the RTI Act 2005: scope of sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act
    Payment of fee under the Right to lnformation Act. 2005 – scope of sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act

    Government of India
    Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
    (Department of Personnel and Training)

    North Block, New Delhi
    Dated the 24th May, 2010


    Subject: Payment of fee under the Right to lnformation Act. 2005 – scope of sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act.

    5. It is hereby clarified that where a Public Information Officer takes a decision to provide information on payment of fee in addition to the application fee, he should determine the quantum of such fee in accordance with the fee prescribed under the Fee and Cost Rules referred to above and give the details of such fee to the applicant together with the calculation made to arrive at such fee. Since the Act or the Rules do not provide for charging of fee towards postal expenses or cost involved in deployment of man power for supply of information etc., he should not ask the applicant to pay fee on such account. However, wherever supply of information in a particular form would disproportionately divert the resources of the publicauthority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the records, the PIO may refuse to supply the information in that form.

    6. Contents of this OM may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

    (K.G. Verma)
    Posted by Dr. Mohammed Naved Khan at 10:57 AM