Kamla Devi vs Central Bank on 23 November, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kamla Devi vs Central Bank on 23 November, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 07.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 06.05.2019 and first appeal dated 22.05.2019 :-

Provide the certified copies of bank statement of respondent/husband Dharam Pal Singh having account no. *******747 in Central Bank of India, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak w.e.f 01.06.2018 to till date.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 06.05.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Rohtak seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 15.05.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied Page 1 of 3 with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.05.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 30.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 07.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 07.06.2019 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 15.05.2019 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"Desired information cannot be provided to you under section 8(1)(d) and (e) of RTI Act, 2005."

The FAA vide order dated 30.05.2019 agreed with the views of CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Dheeraj Goel, Regional Manager & CPIO, Central Bank, Rohtak attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the applicant pertained to their customer Shri Dharam Pal Singh which was held by them in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the information was not disclosed to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was perfunctory. Perusal of the second appeal revealed that the maintenance petition between her and Shri Dharam Pal were pending before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak and the salary statement was required for the calculation of maintenance in the matter. In view of the above, the public interest demands administration of justice and disclosure of the information to the appellant.

Page 2 of 3

Accordingly, the respondent is directed that the RTI application be re-visited and the information be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 23.11.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, JAWAHAR MARKET, MODEL TOWN, ROHTAK THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, SCO NO. 58-59, BANK SQUARE, SEC. - 17B, CHANDIGARH - 160 017 MS. KAMLA DEVI Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission