Raminder Singh Chopra vs Punjab National Bank on 8 July, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Raminder Singh Chopra vs Punjab National Bank on 8 July, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 10.11.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 20.08.2017 and first appeal dated 14.09.2017:

(i) Sh. Surjit Singh Chopra, father of the applicant was having two bank accounts in the branch, one account alongwith his wife Smt. Balwant Kaur bearing account number no. #####2935 and another account of his own name bearing account no. ####0898. The applicant requires the statement of accounts of both these accounts from 2000 to 29.08.2010.

Page 1 of 3

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Chandigarh seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 06.09.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.09.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 04.10.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 10.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 10.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO wrongly and illegally rejected the information. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.09.2017 denied the information stating that information sought is third party information, hence, could not be provided under clause (e) &(j) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 04.10.2017 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and the respondent represented through Dr. Sashi Kumar, Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh attended the hearing through Video Conference.

5.1. The respondent submitted that although the appellant sought information relating to his father, the name of the beneficiary mentioned in the accounts details was different. The account holder had named his other son i.e. Shri Maninder Singh as the beneficiary and by divulging the details sought by the appellant the respondent were not willing to be a party to the disputes between the appellant and his family members. In view of this, the information was denied to the appellant being a third party.

Page 2 of 3

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that the grounds invoked by the respondent for denial of the information are sustainable in the eyes of law and in the absence of the appellant to controvert the contentions of the respondent, the same are taken on record. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner(सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date:08.07.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Circle Office,PNB House, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Circle Office,PNB House, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017 RAMINDER SINGH CHOPRA Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission