S Hanumanthappa vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 24 July, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S Hanumanthappa vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 24 July, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 08.01.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 11.09.2017 and first appeal dated 05.10.2017:-

Page 1 of 4

Copy of the detailed report which was submitted by the Manager, Gramin Bank Jaipur to the Head Office Bellary in respect of his complaint dated 29.06.2017.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, Head Office, Gandhi Nagara, Bellary, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.09.2017 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 05.10.2017. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.10.2017 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 08.01.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 08.01.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.09.2017 refused to provide the information on the ground that the RTI application fee was not deposited by the appellant. The FAA vide order dated 24.10.2018 denied the information under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and the respondent's contact details were not available in the records.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had filed a complaint dated 29.06.2017 for misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 35000/- by the cashier, Gramin Bank, Jaipur. He further stated that the bank had not made any inquiry on Page 2 of 4 his complaint and simply rejected his complaint stating that he had failed to produce any document in respect of deposit of Rs. 35000/- to the saving bank account.

5.2. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, notes that the respondent vide letter dated 04.08.2017 informed to the appellant that his complaint was rejected as he had failed to produce any document in respect of deposit of an amount of Rs. 35000/- as claimed by him in his complaint. Further, they vide letter dated 24.10.2017 denied to provide a copy of the report which was submitted by the Manager of the Jaipur Branch to the Head Office, Bellary on the ground of third party information and held by them under fiduciary capacity, hence it was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission feels that due reply has been furnished by the respondent and there appears no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 21.07.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, 32, SANGARAKAL ROAD, GADNHI NAGAR, BELLARY The F.A.A, Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, HEAD OFFICE, 32, SANGARAKAL ROAD, GADNHI NAGAR, BELLARY S HANUMANTHAPPA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission