Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Biplab Ray vs Bank Of Baroda on 18 December, 2024

                                       के ीय सूचना आयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                    बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                  नई िद   ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं         ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/144510

 Biplab Ray                                                       ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                          VERSUS
                                           बनाम
 CPIO:
 Bank of Baroda,                                             ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Kolkata

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 01.08.2023                 FA      : 08.09.2023            SA     : 11.10.2023

 CPIO : 10.08.2023                FAO : 03.10.2023                Hearing : 11.12.2024


Date of Decision: 17.12.2024
                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) I, the undersigned, Biplab Ray, R.T.I. applicant am to inform you that I have a joint saving account opened in your Bank, Patipukur Branch on 19.01.1990.

Bank A/c No. Is *********3148 and from then joint holder is my wife Ratna Ray.

Particulars of some banking transaction under this bank A/c has appeared missing and so I am requesting you kindly to furnish necessary particulars on Page 1 of 5 such banking transaction for the period from 19.01.1990 to 31.10.2000 and please send to me early for my building valuation purpose.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

It is requested to kindly visit the concerned branch and collect the statements regarding banking transactions on payment of requisite fee as provided in rule 4 of Right to Information Rules. 2012 which states that-

Fee for providing information under sub-section (4) of Section 4 and sub- sections (1) and (5) of Section 7 of the Act shall be charged at the following rates, namely:

(a) Rupees two for each page in A-3 or smaller size paper;

(b) Actual cost or price of a photocopy in large size paper;

(c) Actual cost or price for samples or models:

(d) Rupees fifty per diskette or floppy;

(c) Price fixed for a publication or rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication;(On fee for inspection of records for the first hour of inspection and a fee of rupees 5 for each subsequent hour or fraction thereof, and

(g) So much of postal charge involved in supply of information that exceeds fifty rupees.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.09.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.10.2023.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sandeep Kumar, Regional Head, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied to the appellant vide letters dated 10.08.2023 and APIO's letter dated 21.08.2023, which is reproduced as under:

"We refer to your RTI application dated 01.08.23 received at our Zonal Office on 03.08.23 and the reply from Regional Office dated 10.08.23.

This is to apprise you that the A/C statements pertaining to your savings A/C no. xxxxxxx3148 were available in the system since 2007 and was accordingly provided to you. Further the statement for the year 2000 to 2007 was also recovered through earlier system and was provided.

Regarding the request to, furnish the statements for the period 1990 to 2000 it is submitted that according to the RBI Guidelines and prevalent legislations records regarding ledgers are to be kept for a period of minimum 12 years only but in the said situation it is beyond 22 years.

Further the records are to be preserved as prescribed under Banking Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules, 1985 Pursuant to enactment of RTI Act, 2005 a state of confusion prevailed in Banking Industry as the Act was understood in a way that it required preservation of old records for 20 years.

The Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi clarified that Section- 8 (3) does not require the public authorities to maintain records for -20- years. It can only mean that if records are available pertaining to a period beyond 20 years, the same should be disclosed notwithstanding the exemptions except those in Section 8(1) (a), (c) and (i). Therefore, banks are free to follow the existing rules for preservation of records governing them.

The efficiency of a branch for Preservation and Maintenance of records depends upon its System of "MANAGEMENT OF RECORDS". The Management of Records will cover co-ordination of various activities like storage, maintenance, filing, arranging systematically, retaining and destroying of records after the prescribed period.

Bank of Baroda is a public sector undertaking and welfare of the people is our utmost priority. Consequently, upon the aforementioned grounds the transaction details from the year 2000 has been furnished but the bank is unable to provide the same beyond the said period."

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Moreover, the respondent has also uploaded a copy of the APIO's reply dated 21.08.2023, apart from providing the same to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 17.12.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Kolkata Regional Office, Baroda Tower, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 38/2, Block GN, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700091

2. Biplab Ray Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)