Central Information Commission
Mrlambadi Banavath Govind vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 4 February, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002943
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 4th February 2016
Date of decision : 4th February 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri Lambadi Banavath Govind,
S/o. Shri Sangya, Bheemgal Mandal,
Bheemgal, Nizamabad District, A. P.
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Deccan Grameena Bank,
BranchBheemgal, Nizamabad District, RTI Application filed on : 24/02/2014 CPIO replied on : 25/03/2014 First Appeal filed on : 01/04/2014 First Appellate Authority order on : __ 2nd Appeal received on : 19/11/2014 The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondents, Ms. Bhawani, Regional Manager was present at the NIC Studio, Nizamabad.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter, pertaining to an RTI application, filed by Shri M. Shankar, Advocate on behalf of his client Shri Banavath Govind, seeking information on eight points regarding CIC/SH/A/2014/002943 the housing loan account of his client, came up today. The Respondents submitted that the information sought by the Appellant was provided on 25.3.2014 through their advocate Shri L. Bhoopath Reddy. They further submitted that the first appeal filed by the advocate of the Appellant was also responded to on 30.11.2014 through their advocate Shri B. Chinnareddy.
2. We have considered the records and the submissions made by the Respondents. It is noted that the advocate of the Respondents, in his reply dated 25.3.2014 to the advocate of the Appellant, provided pointwise information and stated in the last paragrah "The application dated 24.2.2014 sent by you to my client bank is not tenable under the law." The advocate of the Appellant filed first appeal on 1.4.2014 to the Regional Manager of the Respondent Bank, seeking information as sought in the RTI application dated 24.2.2014 with the remark that the reply "through Shri L. Bhoopath Reddy, Advocate (Xerox copy of the same is annexed herewith dated 25.3.2014) which is against law under the said Act, as such it is just and necessary to prefer this first appeal before you." We note that the FAA, through the bank's advocate Shri B. Chinnareddy replied on 30.4.2014 to the advocate of the Appellant stating, "appeal was not enclosed with vakalat duly signed by your client. As such the application sent to my client is not tenable under the law."(sic) Thereafter, the Appellant filed second appeal to the A. P. Information Commission which is in Telugu and it was transferred to the CIC by them on 7.11.2014 CIC/SH/A/2014/002943 (received in the CIC on 19.11.2014). In the absence of English version of the appeal filed to the Commission, we are not in a position to know the grounds of the appeal. The Appellant was also not present, in spite of a written notice having been sent to him, to plead his case.
3. In our view if an Appellant files an RTI application through an advocate, it should be accompanied by a vakaltnama or proper authority letter to the satisfaction of the public authority. Further, as per provisions of the RTI Act, applications filed under the Act are to be disposed of by the CPIO and FAA designated by the public authority and note by the advocate of the public authority. In view of what is stated in the preceding paragraph, no action is necessary on the application dated 24.2.2014. However, we would advise the Respondents to take a careful note of what is stated in this paragraph for guidance while taking action in future on the applications filed under the RTI Act.
4. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner CIC/SH/A/2014/002943 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 CIC/SH/A/2014/002943