Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Arun Kumar Mittal vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 15 February, 2024

                                       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/BOMAH/A/2022/627951

 Arun Kumar Mittal                                               ... अपीलकता /Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
 CPIO:
 Bank Of Maharashtra
 Pune                                                        ... ितवादीगण/Respondent


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 24.01.2022                 FA    : 16.03.2022             SA     : 20.05.2022

 CPIO : 24.02.2022                FAO : 18.04.2022               Hearing : 13.02.2024


Date of Decision: 14.02.2024
                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.01.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Copy of letters, directions and/or instructions issued by UIDAI to Bank of Maharashtra giving specific authority to Bank of Maharashtra to stop -
a) The disbursal of balance amount of payment for work done after deduction of penalty charges @ Rs.4/- per EID not received/ submitted/ lost on part of Alankit Finsec Limited; and Page 1 of 3
b) The refund of Performance Bank Guarantee No.60241PEBG130011 dated 04th April 2013 for Rs.7,86,500/-. to Alankit Finsec Limited.
(ii) Copy of letters, directions and/or instructions issued by UIDAI to Bank of Maharashtra that stipulate prior directions or approval of UIDAI mandatory for release of -
a) Balance amount of payment after deduction of penalty charges @ Rs.4/-

per EID lost/ not received/ not submitted on part of Alankit Finsec Limited; and

b) Refund of Performance Bank Guarantee No.60241PEBG130011 dated 04th April 2013 for Rs.7,86,500/-. to Alankit Finsec Limited.

(iii) Copy of letter/ order received by Bank of Maharashtra from UIDAI releasing the balance payment after reducing the withholding rate on account of DMS pendency from Rs.40/- to Rs.4/- per EID.

(iv) Date of receipt of fund by Bank of Maharashtra on account of Letter/ Order as mentioned in para-3 above.

(v) Copy of note sheet indicating notings by various officials and decision of Bank of Maharashtra authorizing the stoppage or denial of disbursal of payment and refund of Performance Bank Guarantee to Alankit Finsec Limited. And other related information.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.02.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"The information sought is related to the personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The same is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.03.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

Page 2 of 3

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.05.2022.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Gaurav Tyagi, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case submitted that an appropriate reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act was given to the appellant.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO had appropriately dealt with the RTI application and had provided a point-wise reply to the appellant. The Commission does not find any flaw in the reply so given, hence no further action is warranted, more so, when the appellant himself was not present to plead his case.

8. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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

Sd/-


                                                                      आनंदी राम लंगम)
                                                (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं            म
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 14.02.2024
Authenticated true copy

Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Bank of Maharashtra, DGM & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Head Office: Pune, Legal Department, Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, MH - 411005
2. Arun Kumar Mittal Page 3 of 3