N K Balodi vs Punjab National Bank on 18 July, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

N K Balodi vs Punjab National Bank on 18 July, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 09.06.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 11.12.2019 and first appeal dated 27.02.2020 :-

(i) " ाथ एन के बलोदी ने दनांक २०.१२.२०१७ को चेक नंबर ९९५१९६, पी एन बी शाखा - डील रायपुर रोड, देहरादून को अपने अकाउं ट सं या १०२४०१०१०००६४४९२ पी एन बी शाखा - डील रायपुर रोड, देहरादून को भुकतान हेतु सम पत कया जो के परमे!र द" #ारा ाथ को दया गया था (दोन% &ि(यो का अकाउं ट इसी *ांच म, है) ले कन वह चेक ाथ को ब/क #ारा funds Page 1 of 4 insufficient क0 1टपणी के साथ ाथ को लोटा दया गया | दस3बर १७ या जनवरी -१८ को उसी (चेक सं या ९९५१९६) चेक को उस ब/क #ारा 4ी परमे!र दीन जी को चेक destroyed करने संबंधी माण प6 दया गया जब क वह चेक ाथ के पास आगे के काय8वाही के िलए सुरि9त था | इस स3ब:ध म, ाथ आपके मा;यम से िन< जानकारी चाहता है :

i) जब चेक 4ी परमे!र दीन #ारा एन के बलोदी ( नर, = कु मार बलोदी ) को जारी कया गया था और ब/क #ारा उसको funds insufficient 1टपणी के साथ ाथ को लोटा दया गया तो ब/क #ारा 4ी परमे!र दीन जी को चेक destroyed करने संबंधी माण प6 कै से दान कया गया |

ii) चेक सं या ९९५१९६ जो परमे!र दीन #ारा ाथ को जारी कया गया था उसे destroyed करने क0 ितिथ बताने के कृ पा कर, " |

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.12.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Dehradun, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.02.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.02.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 17.03.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 09.06.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 09.06.2020 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 06.02.2019 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"ब/क के अवलोकन करने पर ये @ात Aआ है के उपरो( चेक कसी और &ि( के खाते से स3बंिधत है | इसिलए सूचना के अिधकार अिधिनयम क0 धरा ८ (१) (j) के अंतग8त आपको नह" दी जा सकती है | Page 2 of 4 उपरो(ानुसार आपके आर टी आई ाथ8ना प6 का िनDतारण कया जाता है" | The FAA vide order dated 17.03.2020 agreed to CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Kanchan Lohani, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Dehradun, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had presented a cheque issued in his favour, however, the same was returned to him by the bank official with remarks "insufficient funds". He further stated that he had filed a case under Negotiable Instruments Act and the cheque was deposited before court of law. However, when he inquired about the cheuqe in the bank, they informed him and had given him a certificate that the cheque was destroyed.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had presented a cheque before them which was returned back to him due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, when the appellant approached them and inquired about the cheque, they checked for details of the cheque and the same was marked lost.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had taken contradictory stands i.e. after having dishonored the cheque for insufficient funds, they informed the appellant that the information would be supplied within 15 days and, subsequently, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 06.02.2020. It was not the case that the cheque was not produced in the bank for payment by the appellant, therefore, the question of third party information did not arise as the appellant was the owner of the cheque and it was issued in his favour. The appellant had been asking as to how the two stands could sustain under eyes of law on the cheque which was the subject-matter of controversy. The stand of the respondent may not be sustainable in the eyes of law as the claim for exemption was an afterthought. In view of the above, the respondent are directed to provide the recorded reasons for change of their stand i.e. as to when they received intimation for loss of cheque and as to what was the status of funds when the cheque was presented for payment by the Page 3 of 4 appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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


                                                                                    Sd/
                                                                             सुरेश चं ा)
                                                          (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 12.07.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:
THE CPIO
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
CIRCLE OFFICE I-PALTAN BAZAR
DHERADUN -248001

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CIRCLE OFFICE
IPALTAN BAZAR DHERADUN -248001

SH. N.K.BALODI




                                                                               Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission