Central Information Commission
Smt.Gaytri Devi vs Allahabad Bank on 28 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000177/18130
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000177
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Smt Gayatri Singh
Hardya Chaya
Laksman Prasad gali
Vasli ganj , Distt- Mirzapur
UP-231001
Respondent : Mr. J. S. Kohli
PIO & Chief Manager ALLAHABAD BANK Zonal office Mirazapur , UP- 231001 RTI application filed on : 11/06/2011 PIO replied : 07/07/2011 First Appeal : 27/07/2011 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 16/01/2012 Applicant seeking information regarding Bank's letter no Z0/MIR/RECO/F-2/670 dated 04/06/2011 S NO Queries Reply 1 The point no 2 in the released list, how many 3 tenders were received . the copy of the tenders were received. Provide the copy of the tenders cannot be given same.
2 How many tenders were received in the sealed 3 tenders were received in the sealed form envelope?
3 How many tenders were rejected and why? The highest bidder was accepted rest of them were rejected 4 Can the tenders be opened after the decision of The scheduled timings were published in the the scheduled date before prior information? newspapers Provide the copy.
5 The tender was not opened on 08/06/2011 in my The opening of the tenders was done as per presence till 6 PM. so when the mentioned was the scheduled time. opened in front of the applicants 6 In what form the 25% money from successful The amount was deposited in the form of winner of the tender? banker's cheque / bank drafts. The details cannot be provided.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The information provided is unsatisfactory.Page 1 of 2
Order of the FAA:
Not mentioned.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The information provided is unsatisfactory and FAA has not ordered till now.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. J. S. Kohli, PIO & Chief Manager on video conference from NIC-Mirzapur Studio;
The PIO admits that he was in error in refusing to give the information to the Appellant. The Commission warns the PIO that unless refusal of information is justified under the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission will impose penalty under Section 20(1) for refusing the information without any reasonable cause.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide information on query 1 & 6 to the appellant before 10 April 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 28 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 2 of 2