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 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr. Gurmeet Singh vs Syndicate Bank on 19 August, 2010

                          Central Information Commission
                           File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001985 
                Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)




                                                               Dated: 19 August 2010
Name of the Appellant                :    Shri Gurmeet Singh
                                          BB­2, Greater Kailash Enclave II,
                                          New Delhi - 110 048.



Name of the Public Authority         :    CPIO, Syndicate Bank,
                                          Regional Office Delhi,
                                          6, Bhagwan Dass Road,
                                          New Delhi - 01.



The Appellant was represented by Shri Sampuran Singh. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­

(i) M.K. Jain, DGM,

(ii) Shri Kavindra Solanki, Manager (Law)  

2. During the hearing of this case, the father of the Appellant was present  and   made   his   submissions.   He   also   furnished   his   written   comments.   The  Respondents appeared somewhat late and after the Appellant had left. They  clarified that the delay was an account of the heavy rains. We also heard their  submissions.

3. The   Appellant   had   wanted   to   know   whether   the   bank   had  honoured/encashed   the   LIC's   cheque   number   504283   dated   8.9.2003   and  whether the DMIL officers superannuation trust had any account with the bank  to which the amount of the cheque was credited. He also wanted to know the  name of the bank which had presented the cheque for clearing. The CPIO had  informed him that they had cleared the said check when it was presented and  that the above trust did not have any account in their KG Marg branch. About  the  remaining  information,  the   CPIO  explained  that  the   relevant  slip  bundle  dated  13  September 2003  needed  for verification of  the presenting  bank  in  respect of this particular cheque had been destroyed on account of seepage  rain water, implying, therefore, that the details about the presenting bank could  not   be   provided.  The   Appellate  Authority  had  endorsed  the   decision  of   the  CPIO.

4. After   carefully   considering   the   contents   of   the   appeal   and   the  submissions made by the Appellant, we would like to direct the CPIO to search  the database of the bank once again and to inform the Appellant within 10  working   days   from   the   receipt   of   this   order   the   name   of   the   presenting  bank/branch in case this data could be retrieved. If no such data is found to  exist, the CPIO shall inform the Appellant accordingly.

5. The case is, thus, disposed of.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.  Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against  application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this  Commission.

(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar