Virendra Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) This writ petition has been instituted on behalf of petitioner stating therein that the petitioner vide application dated 17.3.2017 requested certain information from opposite party no. 4 and enclosed statutory fee in shape of postal order of Rs.10/- vide IPO No. 25F 734981 dated 22.6.2015. After passage of more than thirty days, no information was provided by Public Information Officer to the petitioner, therefore, he preferred complaint under Section 18 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to Act, 2005) before opposite party no. 2 on 18.4.2017.
(3.) It is further pleaded that the petitioner apprised the Commission-respondent no. 3 that statement of State Public Information Officer-respondent no. 4 about validity of the Indian Postal Order dated 22.6.2016 has got expired is baseless and is acted penally by providing false information. The petitioner requested under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act, 2005 especially using penal powers provided under the Act. The petitioner has relied upon Rule 180-D and 180-E of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933. Section 180-D of the said Rules reads as under:- "180-D. (1) Indian Postal Orders presented within 24 months from the last day of the month of issue are encashable without second commission. If an Indian Postal Order is not presented for payment within 24 months from the last day of the month of issue, the 2nd commission @ prescribed in Rule 180-A above, shall be charged, which shall be paid in postage stamp affixed to the back of the order. The Indian Postal Orders presented more than 36 months after the last day of the month of issue shall be time barred and shall not be paid.";