Mariyappa J vs Canara Bank on 23 December, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mariyappa J vs Canara Bank on 23 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.07.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 31.12.2018 and first appeal dated 04.03.2019:-

(i) Definition and nature of work and tenure and mode of appointment of the vacancies - posts positions of the respondent bank such as the Chairman - the Executive Chairman, the Non Executive Chairman - Chief Managing Director

- Managing Director - Official Director, Non Official Director.

(ii) No. of advisors with their field of expertise.

Page 1 of 6

(iii) Staff workforce pattern or hierarchy wise staff system at the secretariat of the Chairman with work assigned at each post.

(iv) Particulars of Board of Directors with their nature of work and tenure.

(v) Quota of reservation available and allowed on the basis of caste, religion, region, among the above category.

(vi) Names of persons from among the above awardees for Excellency in banking service - sports - athletics - arts - science - cinema - theatricals - commerce

- engineering

(vii) Present pay scale of all the above and details of last one month salary of the all above.

(viii) Name of posts that are proposed for abolishment and name of posts that are proposed for enhancement at Chairman's Secretariat.

(ix) Amount spent up to the end of last month for maintenance of your bank A.T.M.s.

(x) Amount spent so far the recalibration of ATM's to accommodate its desperate of new type currency.

(xi) Amount spent so far for repair of ATM's and kiosks and earnings from the scale of scrapped ATMs and Kiosks.

(xii) Lots suffered and compensation paid due to fraud happened via ATMs plus defective dispense by ATMs and any profit gained from the ATMs business.

(xiii) No. of swiping or attempt allowed at free of cost or usage charge for debit card of your bank ATMs and other bank and for debit cards of other bank at your ATMs

(xiv) Procedure for refund & usage charge.

(xv) Is cheque of one of the branch of your bank drawn on self or on bearer allowed acceptable at other branch counter for encashment?

Page 2 of 6

(xvi) Minimum fixed under/below/lesser than that amounting minimum sum for withdrawal or to pay by cheque. Exe cheque drawn/written for an amount of one or two like single digit or double digit sum.

(xvii) No. of cheques issuable at free of cost for to the account holder. (xviii) Loss due to online banking till date.

(xix) Amount involved in due to passing fake cheques realizing fake D.D.s and other such instruments.

(xx) Officers-staff who visited foreign countries on behalf of bank, names of them with designation and purpose of visit - country visited. (xxi) Branches and offices putting up on rented premises yearly rent spending. (xxii) No. of business correspondents and their monthly salary. (xxiii) Guest house owned by bank persons/dignitaries permitted to avail stay there. (xxiv) During last F.Y. the reported no of burglaries - theft - robbery - value of loss

- damages - both to bank and customer public member. (xxv) Robot drafted - amount of purchase - monthly maintenance expenditure -

saving due to its drafting.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 31.12.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, Bengaluru, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.02.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 04.03.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 05.04.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 03.07.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 03.07.2019 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.

Page 3 of 6

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.02.2019 replied that the information sought was general in nature, voluminous and not maintained in the manner sought for and culling out the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank as provided under Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide order dated 05.04.2019 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Renjith Chandran, Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank, Bangalore Urban attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was arbitrarily denied by the respondent on the ground of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. He stated that information sought was specific and not voluminous in nature and public authority was under obligation to maintain data in proper manner so that it could be retrieved whenever required. He contended that the respondent had failed to discharge their statutory duty as given in the RTI Act. He also contended that revised reply dated 18.12.2021 given by the respondent was not received by him.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the then CPIO had denied the information under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act stating that information sought was voluminous in nature and culling out of the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank. They further submitted that after receipt of hearing notice they had revisited the RTI application and provided revised point-wise information/reply vide letter dated 18.12.2021. They stated that information sought against point nos. 1, 4 & 7 of the RTI application was available in public domain in the Annual Report published on their website www.canarabank.com. Against point no. 15 & 16, they replied that payment of cash up to Rs. 50,000/- per occasion in SB and Current Account only to the drawer against the self cheque and minimum account of withdrawal/deposit was Rs. 10/-. In respect of the point nos. 21 to 24, the respondent provided number of leased premises, rent paid for the leased premises, number of business correspondents deployed by the bank as on 31.02.2021, number of theft, burglary & robbery reported during 2020-2021 along with the amount. It was further Page 4 of 6 submitted that information sought on the remaining points were not specific and the same were not readily available with them.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that after receipt of hearing notice the respondent had provided revised information against point nos. 1, 4, 7, 15, 16 and 21 to 24 of the RTI application vide letter dated 18.12.2021. However, the appellant during the course of hearing submitted that said reply was not received by him. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that some of the queries raised by the appellant were general in nature and the same should be in public domain in pursuance of section 4 (1)

(b) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the respondent may revisit the RTI application and revised point-wise information/reply be made available to the appellant and the general information may be put in public domain in compliance with section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-


                                                                            सुरेश चं ा)
                                                         (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                         सूचना आयु )
                                              Information Commissioner (सू
                                                               दनांक/Date: 23.12.2021
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : CANARA BANK,
RIA SECTION ,JEEVAN PRAKASH
BUILDING, 113-1, J C ROAD
BENGALURU -560002.



                                                                                Page 5 of 6
 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE ANNEXE,
RIA SECTION , JEEVAN PRAKASH
BUILDING, 113-1, J C ROAD
BENGALURU -560002.


SH. MARIYAPPA J




                                   Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission