Central Information Commission
Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur on 6 July, 2009
Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00647-SM dated 29.12.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 6 July 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, 78, Defence Colony, Air Force Gate, Nainital Road, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly (U.P) Name of the Public Authority : CPIO & Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, 44 Civil Lines, Bareilly (U.P) The Complainant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri S.K. Mohla, DGM & CPIO
(ii) Shri A.K. Gulati, Chief Manager
(iii) Shri Tarun Kumar, Branch Manager
(iv) Shri Kumar Rupak, Advocate
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had requested the Branch Manager/CPIO on 29 December 2007 for a number of information regarding the PMRY loan application of one Sri Lakhan. On not receiving any reply or information within the stipulated period, he had sent an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 6 February 2008 which also went unheeded. The present complaint is against the deemed refusal on the part of the CPIO in providing the information.
3. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their submissions. In the meanwhile, the Respondent had also sent written comments on the complaint, a copy of which was handed over to the Complainant. The Respondent has claimed that a reply had indeed been sent to the Complainant giving all the details he had sought regarding the loan application of Sri Lakhan and has incorporated it in the written comments. The Complainant though claimed not to have received the said CIC/PB/C/2008/00647-SM reply of the Branch Manager/CPIO ever. In the absence of a copy of that reply, it is not possible to know whether it was indeed sent to the Complainant at all or not. Even though the written comments of the Respondent contain the details of the information sent, we would still like the Branch Manager/CPIO to send a copy of the original reply to the Complainant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order. He shall also explain to us in writing within the same period of 10 working days from the receipt of this order the exact date on which he had sent the desired information to the Complainant along with the proof of despatch and non- receipt by the Complainant. If we do not receive the detailed explanation in time, we will presume that no reply/information had been sent and will proceed to decide on the imposition of penalty on the Branch Manager/CPIO as provided in Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. It must be noted that neither the Branch Manager nor the counsel representing the Bank in this hearing had any document or record concerning this case and could not be of any help or assistance to the Commission in deciding this case. If the Manager of the Bank had not sent the written comments as in his letter dated 16 September 2008, it would not have been possible for us to know the facts. We would expect that in future the Respondent would come fully prepared to represent the views of the CPIO/Appellate Authority and be of some assistance in deciding such cases and not appears merely to mark a token presence.
5. With the above direction and observation, the case is 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 CIC/PB/C/2008/00647-SM CIC/PB/C/2008/00647-SM