Central Information Commission
Smtindrawati Devi vs Union Bank Of India on 17 August, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001054
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 17th August 2016
Date of decision : 17th August 2016
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Indrawati Devi,
W/o. Shri Haridas Mishra, VillSaraiya,
POAyar. DisttVaranasi, UP 221210
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Union Bank of India,
Regional Office, S2/638, A. Chandra
Chambers, Central Jail Road, Sikraul,
Varanasi, UP 221002
RTI Application filed on : 13/08/2014
CPIO replied on : 10/09/2014
First Appeal filed on : 06/11/2014
First Appellate Authority order on : 22/12/2014
2nd Appeal received on : 13/04/2015
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Varanasi.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Yogender Singh, Regional Manager was
present at the NIC Studio, Varanasi.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001054
Information sought
This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on five points regarding eight DRC accounts.
The CPIO reply The CPIO, Varanasi, vide his letter dated 20.8.2014, transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Jaunpur. The CPIO, Jaunpur, vide letter dated 10.9.2014, provided information on point no. 3 and denied the information on the remaining points under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI act.
Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply.
Grounds of the Second Appeal Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001054 Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision The Appellant stated that she had sought the information regarding the accounts of her mother who is very old and infirm and is residing with her. However, the information was denied to her, treating her as a third party. The Respondents stated that the Appellant had not provided them the name of the account holder and the branch where her deposits were held. Further, the information was sought by the Appellant and not the account holder. The Appellant stated that she holds a power of attorney from her mother, i.e. the account holder.
2. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. The Appellant may provide to the CPIO the name of the account holder and the name of the branch where her deposits were held; as well as the power of attorney which she claims to hold from the account holder. In the event of her providing the above documents, particularly the power of attorney, to the satisfaction of bank, the CPIO should provide her the information in response to points No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the RTI application, free of charge, within twenty days of her providing the documents as above, under intimation to the Commission. We note that the information on point No. 3 already stands provided.
3. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001054
4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) 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) Deputy Registrar File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001054