Sanjay Kumar Verma vs Canara Bank on 23 October, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sanjay Kumar Verma vs Canara Bank on 23 October, 2023

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                      के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/CANBK/C/2022/627130
 Sanjay Kumar Verma                             ...िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                           VERSUS
                                            बनाम
 CPIO: Central Bank of India,
 Ayodhya                                                       ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

 RTI : 15.03.2022                 FA     : 14.04.2022            Complaint : Nil

 CPIO : 14.04.2022                FAO : 22.04.2022               Hearing     : 14.09.2023
                                          CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                               SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                         ORDER

(19.10.2023)

1. The issue under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated nil due to alleged non-supply of information vide RTI application dated 15.03.2022 are as under:-

 Take necessary action against the concerned CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 15.03.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Ayodhya, seeking following information:

(i) २०२१ म जनवरी माह से जून माह तक कु ल कतने नए खाते खोलने के िलए आवेदन ा ए |

(ii) उन सभी खात को खोलने म कतना कतना समय लगा | सभी क दैिनक !रपोट$ क छाया ित देने का क& कर | Page 1 of 4

(iii) 'या ब)क क cctv footage का कै मरा काय$रत है य द हाँ तो

(iv) िपछले १ महीने का cctve footage देने का क& कर | य द अ-य खच/ लगे मुझे बताने का क& कर |

(v) २०२२ म ए सभी अिनयिमतता2 का सं4या5मक प!रचय द व अिनयिमतता2 क सूची या छाया ित दान कर The CPIO replied to the complainant vide letter dated 14.04.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed first appeal dated 14.04.2022. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 22.04.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed complaint dated nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated Nil inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the respondent was not satisfactory. The complainant 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 vide letter dated 14.04.2022 provided point-wise reply to the complainant and the same is reproduced as under:-

i) हमारी दलासीगंज शाखा म जनवरी २०२१ से जून २०२१ तक २०२ खाते के िलए आवेदन ा ए थे|

ii) हमारी शाख 7ारा सभी खात को ज8द से ज8द खोल दया जाता एवं दैिनक छाया ित क सूचना के स9ब-ध म अवगत कराना है क इसका उ<र section 8(1) (d) (e) ऑफ़ RTI act के अंतग$त नह= दया जा सकता है |

iii) हमारी दलासीगंज शाखा क CCTV काय$रत है

iv) यह सूचना section 8(1) (d) (e) ऑफ़ RTI act के अंतग$त एवं सुर>ा कारण से आपको नह= दया जा सकता है |

v) यह सूचना अ@प& है अत: इसका उ<र नह= दया जा सकता है | The FAA vide order dated 22.04.2022 upheld the CPIO's reply.

Page 2 of 4

5. The complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Manoj Srivastava, Chief Manager, Central Bank, Faizabad attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the complainant vide letter dated 14.04.2022.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that point-reply was given by the respondent vide letters dated 14.04.2022 and 22.04.2022. Moreover, the complainant neither filed any written objections nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. Therefore, in the absence of any merit in the complaint, the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 19.10.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO Central Bank of India Raghuveer Niwas, Civil Lines, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh-242001 Page 3 of 4 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY Central Bank of India Raghuveer Niwas, Civil Lines, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh-242001 SH. SANJAY KUMAR VERMA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission