M KALIAPERUMAL Vs. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE petitioner has come forward to challenge the order of the third respondent, i. e. The Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent of Post offices, Gudur Division, State of Andhrapradesh, challenging the order, dated 16. 5. 2008 which was confirmed by the second respondent vide his order, dated 2. 7. 2008 and the first respondent's order dated 1. 5. 2009. After setting aside those orders the petitioner wanted the information sought in his application, dated 11. 3. 2008 under Section 6 of the Right To Information Act (for short RTI act ).

(3.) IN his representation, dated 11. 3. 2008, the petitioner sought for an information relating to one K. Ramachandra Rao, a retired time-scale Sub-Post master, who was drawing his pension from Gudur Head Post Office, Nellore district. In the residential address of the said person given in the official document, i. e. No. 4/7/156, Nelcost Road, Gudur, Nellore District, State of andhrapradesh, he was not available. The reason why the petitioner wanted to know his address was that the petitioner had secured a judgment and decree against him before the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in O. S. No. 764 of 1997, dated 16. 12. 1998. The petitioner wanted to execute the decree. Therefore, he wanted his address. However, the petitioner was informed that the information sought for cannot be granted to him since the reasons adduced by him were not convincing and the representation related to private litigation cases between the petitioner and the retired pensioner Ramachandra Rao and it did not come under the purview of a Public Interest Litigations.