Ashish Devidas Thakare vs Union Bank Of India on 28 June, 2023

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ashish Devidas Thakare vs Union Bank Of India on 28 June, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 18.09.2021 and first appeal dated 20.10.2021:-

(i) Details of the action taken on the application made on 18/02/2020 for the priority use of Marathi language in your branch should be given.

(ii) Marathi is the official language of the State of Maharashtra and according to the Three Language policy of the Reserve Bank of India, it is compulsory for you to use Marathi as a language of preference.

(iii) Marathi is the official language of the State of Maharashtra and according to the Three Language policy of the Reserve Bank of India, it is compulsory for you to use Marathi as a language of preference. An attested copy of the order or Page 1 of 4 circular issued by your bank from time to time should be provided to encourage learning.

(iv) After the lodged a complaint with customer your branch what is the rules and regulations laid down by the bank and how's taken action based on rules or guideline made by bank and what is the time limit of complaint reply.

(v) After his complaint/ service request letter dated 18/02/2020 what action taken from headquarters at the time of publishing all bank stationery, how many time given instruction all stationary will be published in Marathi language also, provide attested copy of the action given by request letter from 18/02/2020 to till today.

(vi) Give full details of first appellant officer

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.09.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information.

The CPIO vide letter dated 13.10.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.10.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 02.11.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

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

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.10.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "All notice, Boards and customer information chart all instruction published in your branch in three language (e.g. Marathi, Hindi and English) and ATM, paying slip/withdrawal slip book, Account Opening Form in this all category Page 2 of 4 using Marathi language This point we are forwarded in Design maker officer and we as soon as possible take design about add in Marathi language also.

(ii) (iii), (iv) & (v) As per our authority some part of point number (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) send Chief public information officer (CPIO) union Bank of India.

(vi) As per the request of point number (vi) first appellant officer details given in below Shree Rajiv Mishra (CPIAO) Union Bank of India, M S Marg, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 023."

The FAA vide order dated 02.11.2021 stated that the CPIO had already provided information to the appellant.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jayadeesh, CPIO, Union Bank of India, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information which was not maintained by them in due course of business and was not available with them in material form.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought raised a grievance regarding services provided by the bank and had demanded that services be made available to him in Marathi language. Perusal further reveals that the respondent had given point-wise reply of the RTI application vide letter dated 13.10.2021. The appellant argued that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent. In the RTI application, he was not seeking any documents or any information which was in material form. The Appellant appears to be commanding the Public Authority to give information in a particular manner not maintained in due course, as a matter of right. However, the respondent may not be compelled to create or collate information which was Page 3 of 4 not available in the first place. There appears to be 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: 26.06.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: UNION BANK OF INDIA, AML-2, MAHAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI 400093 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNION BANK OF INDIA, 11TH FLOOR,239, VIDHAN BHAVAN, MARG,NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021 SHRI ASHISH DEVIDA THAKARE Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission