Nilesh Namdevrao Bansode vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nilesh Namdevrao Bansode vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.01.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought (reproduced) by the appellant through the RTI application dated 30.10.2019and first appeal dated 03.12.2019:-

Certified copy of the document i.e. bond paper on the basis of which certain transaction between Namdev Piraji Bansode and Sadashiv Jyotiram Dumne were done.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 30.10.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Dist. Latur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.11.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved Page 1 of 3 by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.12.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 17.12.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 22.01.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.01.2020 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 20.11.2019 expressed their inability to provide the information as the same was not led by them. The FAA vide order dated 17.12.2019 upheld the CPIO' reply.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sanjiv Wangwad, Deputy General Manager and CPIO and Shri Lalit Bidarkar, Law Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Latur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought copy of the agreement on the basis of which some transactions were done between his deceased his father Mr. Namdev Piraji Bansode and Mr. Sadashiv Jyotiram Dumne. However, the same was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought was not specific. He further submitted that the transactions were done between the private parties and the bank was not party to that. Therefore, they were not custodian of the information sought by the appellant.

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 an agreement which was signed by his father Mr. Namdev Piraji Bansode and Mr. Sadashiv Jyotiram Dumne. The appellant failed to establish that any such document was handed over to the bank or the bank was custodian of or party to that document (agreement). The respondent while defending their case inter alia informed that the so called document between the Page 2 of 3 private parties had nothing to do with the bank or the banking transactions. That being so they were not the custodian of the document hence the same was denied to the appellant. In view of the above, 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: 31.08.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank of Maharashtra Pushpak Plaza, Ganesh Nagar, Ausa Road, Latur Maharashtra-413512 The FAA Bank of Maharashtra 'Yashomangal' 1183/A, F.C. Road, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411005 Shri Nilesh Namdevrao Bansode, Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission