Central Information Commission
Mr. Kripal Singh vs Registrar Cooperative Society, Gnct, ... on 2 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001581/13789
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001581
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Kripal Singh
D-1/33A, Chandra Puri (Chand Bagh),
Opp. Bhajan Pura,
New Delhi-110094.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Delhi Co-operative Bank, Darya Ganj, Netaji Subhash Chandra Marg, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 30/12/2010
PIO replied on : No reply
First Appeal filed on : 23/03/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : 27/04/2011
Second Appeal received on : 23/05/2011
Information Sought Reply of PIO
1.Provide details of the rule under which no entry of debit and credit has been made of an No reply.
amount of Rs. 7,206 (difference), regarding the entry of Rs. 9,794 shown in the bank statement instead of Rs. 17,000 deposited in A/C No. G.E.C.C 319 on 25.11.2010.
2. Under which rule is it mentioned that the bank is not required to clarify as to why an No reply. interest of Rs. 7,206 has been deducted?
Provide information on this rule.
3. A debit of Rs. 7,206 was reversed on 13.09.2009. What does this imply? No reply.
4. Describe the rule under which there is no entry of debit and credit of an amount of Rs. No reply. 2,184 vide cheque no. 215055 deposited on 22.05.2009.
5. Which employee is responsible for the above mentioned mistakes? No reply. Provide information regarding his name, post and the disciplinary action is being taken against him.
6. If no disciplinary action against the above mentioned employee has been carried out as yet, No reply. till when will the action be taken?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply by the PIO till date.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Mr. G. Mallikarjun, Secretary, Banking Ombudsman, 2nd Floor, Reserve Bank of India, Building, 6, Parliament Street, New Delhi had stated in reply to the first appeal dated 23/03/2011 that Reserve Bank of India cannot force any bank to provide information. Hence, no action can be taken.
Grounds of the Second Appeal:
The PIO has provided the Appellant with no answers till date.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that no information has been provided by the PIO, Delhi Cooperative Bank.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as per available records to the Appellant before 20 August 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 25 August, 2011. He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
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 02 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (TG)