B P Gupta vs Union Bank Of India on 8 March, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

B P Gupta vs Union Bank Of India on 8 March, 2019

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 04.09.2017 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 21.03.2017 are as under :

• Kindly provide information and take action against the bank employee responsible for the inaction.

Page 1 of 3

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2017, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Jaunpur, seeking inter-alia the following information:

i. Is review of settlement of two FDRs necessary?

ii. When do you expect to clear the settlement?

iii. When wife of Late Raj Narain expected to get the corrected amount after review?

The CPIO did not give any reply. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed complaint dated 04.09.2017, before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 04.09.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the information.

4. The CPIO did not give ant reply.

5. The complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Law Officer, Union Bank of India, Jaunpur, attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.1. The respondent submitted that para-wise reply was provided to the complainant on 13.09.2017. During the course of hearing, the respondent produced the dispatch proof of letter dated 13.09.2017. The respondent submitted that the information was provided to the appellant on point no. 1 of the RTI application, however, point no. 2 and 3 of the RTI application are in the nature of clarification and the same could not be furnished. The respondent further submitted that they did not receive the RTI application dated 21.03.2017. On receipt of the complaint dated 04.09.2017 they immediately dispatched their reply to the complainant.

Page 2 of 3

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, feels that on account of non-appearance of the complainant to controvert the contentions of the respondent, the reply dated 13.09.2017 is deemed appropriate. It appears that delay caused by the respondent in responding to the RTI application was not with mala fide. Accordingly, complaint is rejected.

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

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra(सु सुरेशचं ा) ा Information Commissioner(सूसूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date: 07.03.2019 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission