Rajkumar vs Syndicate Bank on 25 February, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajkumar vs Syndicate Bank on 25 February, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 15.10.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 14.09.2018 and first appeal dated 15.10.2018:-

(i) रा सरकार की ऋण मोचन योजना के अंतगत आपकी शाखा म िकतने िकसान पा हो सभी की सूची उपल कराये I

(ii) बक ारा ऋण मोचन योजना म भेजी गई सूची म िकतने िकसानों का ऋण माफ़ आ है I िकतने िकसान ऋण माफ़ी से अभी तक िकन कारणों से वंिचत रह गये सू ची उपल करायI Page 1 of 4

(iii) आपकी बक शाखा से नया कृिष ऋण िकसानों ारा उपल कागजों के िकतने िदनों के बाद िदया जाता है I जो कृिष नोिटस अंतगत क सरकार के िदशा िनदशानु सार जो० ओ० की कॉपी उपल कराय I

(iv) ऋण मोचन योजना का रही सरकार का जी० ओ० उपल कराय िजससे िकसानों का ऋण माफ़ िकया जा रहा है I

(v) िकसानों के ओ० टी० एस० खाते म पैसा जमा होने के बाद िकतने िदनों म ब िकये जाते हैI

(vi) ओ० टी० एस० होने के बाद िकसानों को ऋण िदया जाता है िक नहीं यिद नहीं ऋण िदया जाता है तो बक की िनित जो० ओ० की एक कॉपी उपल कराय I जो की बक बक ारा ओ० टी० एस० खाते वालों को ऋण नहीं िदया जाता है I

(vii) पासबुक खो जाने पर या भर जाने पर दू सरी जारी करने का िकतना शु िलया जाता है

(viii) िकसानों को बक ारा डी जाने वाली बीमा स ी योजना की जानकारी उपल कराय

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 14.09.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), erstwhile Syndicate Bank (currently Canara Bank), Chandra Vihar, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.10.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 15.10.2018 The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 15.10.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 15.10.2018 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 17.10.2018 that the information in respect of point nos 1 and 2 of the RTI application was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act; that loans worth amount Rs. 25 or less were sanctioned within a fortnight and loans worth more than Rs. 25 lacs were sanctioned within eight to nine weeks from submission of relevant Page 2 of 4 documents; information in respect of point no. 4 of the RTI application was available at their web portal; as per the terms of loan agreement and time period stipulated in it; no charges were levied in the case of the passbook getting filled, however, Rs.100/-plus GST was charged in cases of passbook being lost; and that there were two kinds of insurances available under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) and Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (PAIS). The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Kapil Dev Yadav, Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, Kanpur attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they provided detailed reply vide CPIO's letter dated 17.10.2018. The respondent further submitted that the appellant was their customer but they were not aware as to why he had sought the information in respect of third parties. The disclosure of information, wherever plausible, was made to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that due reply was given vide CPIO's letter dated 17.10.2018.Moreover, perusal of the RTI application revealed that the appellant had asked for information general in nature and not specific and was also not related to him. That being so, and in absence of the appellant or any written objections, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. 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.

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 25.02.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : CANARA BANK Sai Palace, HIG 1-B, Chandra Vihar, Lakhanpur, Kanpur (U.P.) - 208012 (ERSTWHILE Syndicate Bank THE F.A.A, CANARA BANK, Sai Palace, HIG 1-B, Chandra Vihar, Lakhanpur, Kanpur (U.P.) - 208012 SH. RAJKUMAR Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission