Sudhir Venaktrao Sagar vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 29 May, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sudhir Venaktrao Sagar vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 29 May, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 21.09.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 02.02.2021 and first appeal dated 03.03.2021:-

 All Permission Orders regarding release of funds - April 2016 to December 2020

(i) All Permission Order Issued By Block Development Officer, Ausa to Maharastra Gramin Bank, branch Ausa Regarding Release of Grant of Grampanchayat, Killari in Account No **********7627 in 14th finance commission Government fund during the period of April - 2016 to December-2020.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 02.02.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 3 Information Officer (CPIO), Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Maharashtra, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.03.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.03.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 29.04.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 21.09.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 21.09.2021 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 03.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Your requested information details are related to other persons and personal accounts. This information Confidential relation between bank and Customers so as sections 8 (1)(a-j) under RTI act-2005 it was not binding bank to give information to you."

The FAA vide order dated 29.04.2021 agreed to the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Santosh Baba Rao, CPIO, Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Aurangabad attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought copies of all permission orders which contained personal details of individuals and decisions which might have adversely affected commercial confidence of their bank. Therefore, they had denied the information under the provisions of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 03.03.2021. Moreover, the information sought by the appellant was vague and indefinite.

Page 2 of 3

Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. 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) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 26.05.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, PLOT NO. 42, GUT NO. 33, GOLWADI VILLAGE, TAL-DISTAURANGABAD, NEAR DISHA SANKRITI SOCIETY, MAHARASHTRA - 431136 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, PLOT NO. 42, GUT NO. 33, GOLWADI VILLAGE, TAL-DISTAURANGABAD, NEAR DISHA SANKRITI SOCIETY, MAHARASHTRA - 431136 SH. SUDHIR VENAKTRAO SAGAR Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission