Pawan Kumar Rai vs Union Bank Of India on 27 June, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pawan Kumar Rai vs Union Bank Of India on 27 June, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.10.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 30.08.2021 and first appeal dated 01.10.2021:-

 The appellant have been given a reply cum notice through the bank in which the claim made in respect of family chair name made in Dafa 2 and claim made regarding the share of shareholders in Dafa 3 and Dafa 7 or Claim in respect of loan given by the bank for construction of house in the said araji in Dafa 4 and claim of pending appeal before commissioner Varanasi in respect of order dated 11-12-2020 of the sub-divisional magistrate court, Mohammadabad in phase 5 and phase 6 have been made by the bank in order to justify the loan. The bank name of the client is: Union Bank of India and the bank account number is ************006.

Page 1 of 3

(i) On what grounds the claims are mentioned in the copy of bank's notice-cum-

reply dated 19/02/2021

(ii) Provide true copy of the said letters under Right to Information Act 2005.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 30.08.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Uttar Pradesh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.10.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 01.10.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 20.10.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 27.10.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.10.2021 inter 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.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.10.2021 that information sought in the point no. (i) of the RTI application was not covered within section 2 (f) of the RTI Act and the information with respect to point no. (ii) of the RTI application was not available with the bank. They further stated that the notice cum reply dated 17.02.2021 was certified and provided to the appellant. They also informed that any other information in that regard could be obtained from the website www.vaad.up.nic.in/Search_CaseNo_Wise.aspx and the case no. was REV/1865/2020. The FAA vide order dated 20.10.2021 stated that the CPIO had already provided information to the appellant.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Khiri Gupta, Regional Head/CPIO, Union Bank of India, Gazipur, Uttar Pradesh attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided the requisite information, till the date of hearing. The respondent bank had claimed that their family Page 2 of 3 property against which loan was sanctioned to one of the members, was a divided property. Therefore, he had sought the information i.e. grounds based on which the bank had made aforementioned claims.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the queries raised by the appellant were ambiguous and there was no clarity in the RTI application. Therefore, they had claimed that the information was not covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 04.10.2021. Perusal of the RTI application revealed that the queries raised therein were non-specific. Moreover, the appellant had not sought any document or information in material form and that being so, the respondent may not give justification or reasons/grounds in response to the RTI queries. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 28.06.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: UNION BANK OF INDIA, SHUBHRA MOTEL COMPLEX, MAHUA BAG, GHAZIPUR, UTTAR PRADESH-233001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNION BANK OF INDIA S 2/638A, FIRST FLOOR,CHANDRA CHAMBERS, CENTRAL JAIL ROAD, SIKRAUL, VARANASI, UP - 221002 SH. PAWAN KUMAR RAI Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission