Tanveer Ahmed Siddiqui vs Bank Of Baroda on 30 May, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Tanveer Ahmed Siddiqui vs Bank Of Baroda on 30 May, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 30.10.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 07.11.2016 and first appeal dated 14.12.2016:-

Page 1 of 4

(i) Provide all information available with Bank of Baroda about all the rules that allow it or its Officers to reject Credit application of an MSE (Micro or Small Enterprises) at the discretion of Bank Branch Head or any employee of the Bank at all?

(ii) Provide all information available with Bank of Baroda regarding acceptance and dealing with MSE (Micro or Small Enterprises) credit application till final disposal and maintainance of records with the Commercial Banks and reporting of such information to whatever authorities.

(iii) Provide all information about powers to regulate Bank of Baroda held by Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, etc. or orders of such authorities acceptable regarding MSE (Micro or Small Enterprises) lending.

(iv) Provide all information about powers of RBI (Reserve Bank of India), Department of Financial Services and all others regarding NOT to regulate Commercial Banks on MSE (Micro or Small Enterprises) Credit, despite they default to follow the MSMED Act and RBI guidelines.

(v) Provide all information available with Bank of Baroda regarding situations when it can override RBI guidelines and the MSMED Act 2006 while considering advance/credit petition from an MSE (Micro or Small Enterprises) Page 2 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.11.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow seeking aforesaid information. Not having received any response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 14.12.2016. Subsequently, the CPIO replied on 29.12.2016. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 25.01.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 30.10.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 30.10.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO is unsatisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information immediately and award him compensation.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.12.2016 gave a point wise reply. The FAA vide his order dated 25.01.2017 concurred with the decision taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. C.P. Agarwal, AGM, Bank of Baroda, Lucknow attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent inter alia submitted that they had already provided the information to the appellant vide their letter dated 29.12.2016.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that due reply has already been Page 3 of 4 given to the appellant. There is no public interest in prolonging the matter any further. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 30.05.2019 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission