Ashok Kumar Jadhav vs Central Bank on 17 February, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ashok Kumar Jadhav vs Central Bank on 17 February, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 15.12.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 02.09.2020and first appeal dated 28.10.2020:-

 The photos or idols of Ganesh bhagwan displayed in bank's own building at 317 MG road camp, Pune 411001  The amount spent by Zonal office, Pune for the donation to Dagadu Seth Ganpati Mandir, Pune, printed the Aarti books , flex boards, celebrating Ganesh festival at zonal office doing satyanarayan mahapooja by the bank at Z. O. Pune Page 1 of 4  The copy of policy and guidelines of bank about the celebration, donation, printing, pooja of bhagwan Ganesh at bank premises and at the expenses of bank from 01.08.2010 to 31.08.2020.

(i) Position of bank's own building at 317 M.G. Road regarding three floor premises. No of cabin's allotted to executive, No. of Ganesh idol photo displayed in executive cabin and the expenses incurred by bank to display Ganesh photos & idols.

(ii) Position of amount expended by Z.O. Pune year wise w.e.f. 1/8/2010 to 31/8/2020 under Donation to Dagadhu seth Ganesh mandir, Printing Ganesh aarti books, Printing Ganesh flex boards, Ganpati festival at Z.O. Pune, Satyanarayan pooja at Z.O. pune from 2010 to 2020.

(iii) The Xerox copy of policy &guidelines of bank about religious Ganesh festival celebration in bank premises, satyanarayan pooja, donation to mandir, printing aarti books, flex boards of Ganesh festival by bank.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 02.09.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Pune, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.09.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated28.10.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 11.11.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 15.12.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 15.12.2020inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant 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.

Page 2 of 4

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.09.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"The information you have sought does not come under the definition of information as provided in Sec - 2(f) of RTI Act - 2005. Hence same cannot be provided."

The FAA vide order dated 11.11.2020and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "Regarding Clause (7) (i) (a) - The information sought by you does not come under the definition of information as provided in Section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence we are unable to process the same.

(ii) Clause (7) (i) (b) - The publicity budget is allotted by Central Office for publicity of Bank and Bank's products through various modes including sponsoring of cultural events, etc. and Zonal Office utilizes the same within the budget and for the purposes specified. Detailed breakup is not maintained year wise.

(iii) As stated above, publicity expenditure budget as well as specific heads for allocation are approved by Corporate Office."

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sagar Vinayak Kadam, Chief Manager, Central Bank, Pune, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied to the RTI application and the first appeal vide letters dated 23.09.2020 and 11.11.2020 respectively. They further submitted that the publicity budget was allotted by their Central Office for publicity of Bank and Bank's products through various modes including sponsoring of cultural events, etc. and Zonal Office utilizes the same within the budget and for the purposes specified.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was incomplete. The respondent inter alia informed that budget was allotted by their Central Page 3 of 4 Office for publicity of Bank and Bank's products through various modes including sponsoring of cultural events, etc. and Zonal Office utilizes the same within the budget and for the purposes specified. However, they did not provide specific point-wise information or reply to the RTI application. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide specific point-wise information or reply to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 17.02.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND/3RD FLOOR, 317, M.G.ROAD, PUNE CAMP, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411001 First Appellate Authority CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND/3RD FLOOR, 317, M.G.ROAD,PUNE CAMP, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411001 Shri Ashok Kumar Jadhav Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission