Shakti Bhushan vs Indian Overseas Bank on 31 December, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shakti Bhushan vs Indian Overseas Bank on 31 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.07.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 28.01.2019 and first appeal dated 11.03.2019 :-

 "Non-CTS Cheque clearing dates (01 June 2018 to 31 December 2018) In the above period by RBI and head office, the information of prescribed dates regarding such circulars on which from branch the non-CTS cheques had been sent for clearing (Attested copies of with complete required information)."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.01.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Page 1 of 3 Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Chandigarh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 11.03.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 24.07.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration. Thereafter, the CPIO vide letter dated 01.08.2019 replied to the appellant.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 24.07.2019 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 on 01.08.2019 that the information sought was not clear and that they did not understand what the appellant was seeking.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Noorie Begum, Sr. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chandigarh attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought information relating to procedure of clearance of non-CTS cheques sought by him and that he had received all required documents from the respondent. Therefore, the appellant stated that he would like to withdraw his second appeal and requested the Commission to dispose of the appeal.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the Central Office had earlier sought clarification as the appellant had not provided the specific dates relating to which the information was sought. Thereafter, they had contacted the appellant and provided the requisite information on 28.12.2021. The respondent pleaded that the delay caused on their part was unintentional and that they needed some time to procure the requisite information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant during the course of hearing submitted that he had received the requisite information and was not willing Page 2 of 3 to pursue the second appeal any further. That being so, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 31.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SCO 26, SECTOR 7-C, MADHYA MARG, CHANDIGARH - 160019 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LAW DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL OFFICE, P.B. 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU- 600002 SH. SHAKTI BHUSHAN Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission