Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mancharam Purohit vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 14 June, 2019

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                  के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2017/170883

Mancharam Purohit                                           ... अपीलकता/Appellant



                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम



CPIO: Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin                                         ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Bank, Jalore / Jodhpur

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 27.04.2017             FA        : 24.06.2017        SA     : 06.10.2017
CPIO : 02.05.2017 (Not
                             FAO : 25.07.2017              Hearing : 12.06.2019
on record)

                                  ORDER

(14.06.2019)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 06.10.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 27.04.2017 and first appeal dated 24.06.2017:-

 कायालय राज थान म धरा ामीण बकशाखा रामसीन के वतमान म िकराय पर िलए भवन के , लीज़ अ ीमट की मािणत ित मय न ा एवं इस द ावेज़ के साथ पे श उ भवन के ािम स ंिधत द ावे ज़ की मािणत ितिलिप उपल कराएं |

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 27.04.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jalore seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 02.05.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 24.06.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 25.07.2017.

Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 06.10.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 06.10.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO is unsatisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and award compensation of Rs. 5000/- to him.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.05.2017 denied the information under clauses

(d), (e) & (j) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 25.07.2017 has agreed with the views taken by the CPIO. Hearing on 24.04.2019 4.1. The appellant and respondents Shri Vikram Singh Rajawat, Regional Manager, Jalore and Mr. V.C. Khinvasara, CPIO, Jodhpur Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank attended the hearing through video conferencing.

Interim decision (25.04.2019) 4.2. The Commission has passed the following order on 22.04.2019 4.1. The appellant submitted that the bank building is constructed on khasra No. 3706 and 3707 which belongs to him and he has certain civil disputes. He added that he is seeking public document and not a third party information. 5.2. The respondent submitted that khasra No. 3706 and 3707 allotted to appellant has nothing to do with the property on which the bank building is constructed. They entered an agreement with the proprietor of the property and this being third party information exempted under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

6. Due to technical issue in video conferencing, the matter could not be heard properly. Hence the matter is adjourned to 24.05.2019. In the meantime the parties may submit their written statements if any to the Commission on or before 24.05.2019.

Hearing could not take place on 24.5.2019 due to administrative reason and posted for hearing on 12.06.2019.

Hearing on 12.06.2019

5. The appellant remained absent and respondent Mr. Dinesh Dutt Shukla, RM/CPIO and Mr. H. R. Prajpat, Officer, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jalore attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent submitted that the appellant had alleged that the bank building was constructed on khasra No. 3706 and 3707 which belonged to him, whereas the bank building was constructed on other land which had no connection with appellant. They also submitted that in the previous hearing the appellant had misrepresented to the Commission.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels submissions made by the respondent are reasonable and satisfactory. The appellant is not present to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Therefore, averments made by the respondent are taken on record. The Commission feels that no public interest would be served in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 14.06.2019 Page 4 of 4