Ramendra Prasad vs Bank Of India on 21 October, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ramendra Prasad vs Bank Of India on 21 October, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.12.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 19.09.2017 and first appeal dated 04.11.2017:

(i) वष 2016-2017 दौरान रल प केशन (Rural Publication) के अंतगत िकतनी रािश के ावधान िकया गया था I

(ii) अंचल-वार िकतनी रािश उपल करायी गयी थी I Page 1 of 3

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Head Office, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 25.10.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 04.11.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 08.12.2017.

Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 26.12.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 26.12.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the Zonal Manager and Deputy Zonal Manager were hand in gloves for misutilising the funds for personal use and the respondent was deliberately not disclosing the information.

4. The CPIO replied on 25.10.2017 that amount of Rs. 180 lakhs was allocated for rural publicity by their bank in 2016-17. With respect to point No. 2 of the RTI application, the CPIO stated that the information pertinent to all Regional Offices of Bank of India was voluminous and could not be furnished as per section 7 (9) of RTI Act. The FAA stated that they attempted to collect budget allocation details for all zonal offices and provided zone-wise details in tabular form.

5. The appellant remained absent and Shri Arun Kumar Sinha, CPIO, Bank of India, Muzaffarpur (respondent) attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The respondent submitted that the information relating to overall zonal budget for rural publication had been given. However, they had also collected the details of item-wise expenditure from the Head Office and an amount of Rs. 4,21,800/- had been spent in their zone towards rural publication. They ensured to provide the said information to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that the information has been Page 2 of 3 made available to the appellant partly vide CPIO's letter dated 25.10.2017. As submitted by the respondent, the details of item-wise expenditure incurred by them in rural publication shall also be made available to the appellant within ten days of date of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा Information Commissioner(सूसूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date:21.10.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. BANK OF INDIA Head Office, Legal Deptt, Star House, 3rd Floor, C- 5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, P.B. 8135, Mumbai- 400051 The FAA, Bank of India, Head Office, Legal Deptt, Star House, 3rd Floor, C- 5, G Block, BandraKurla Complex, Bandra, P.B. 8135, Mumbai- 400051 RAMENDRA PRASAD Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission