Central Information Commission
Mr.K Satya Narayana Sharma vs Corporation Bank on 13 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003047/16843
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003047
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. K. Satyanarayan Sharma
R/o: 17-A, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi - 110088.
Respondent : Mr. Shiv Kumar
CPIO & DGM Corporation Bank Zonal office, Hindustan Times House, 10th floor, K G Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001 RTI application filed on : 12/06/2011 PIO replied : 08/07/2011 First appeal filed on : 30/09/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 10/10/2011 Second Appeal received on : 27/10/2011 Information Sought:
1. Name, E. No, Scale, Designation of Mr. U. Bal Krishna Nayak, Mr. Samuel Hembrum the then Branch head of Alwar, as on 16.07.2007, pl furnish latest address for communication.
2. When Alwar branch received 16/07/07 report? Who submitted Report? To whom it was submitted? At what place & what time it was submitted? Copy of page indicating receipt of report and submission of report. Whether any reply was submitted by branch on concluding day rectifying any irregularities? Whether the report is lodged? If yes, date of lodgment!
3. (i) To whom the Special report was submitted?
(ii) Who are all constituted in the body that was formed? Is it the then Chief Manager 1AD, AGM, 1AD, DGM, lAD and GM lAD?
(iii) When both ED and CMD very specifically instructed to de link all business connections with the party why the instructions were not carried out? Why they have been DEFIED)? Whose interests were protected?
(iv) What were the reactions of GM DGM & ACM, CM of Delhi Zone to instructions from ED & CMD?
(v) What was the reaction of AGM Bhopal and CM Bhopal Credit after formation of new zone? Whether they gone through the file? Whether they are aware of the instructions of ED & CMD directly or indirectly? Why they failed to obey the reasonable instructions of ED & CMD? Whose interests CM & ACM Bhopal protected? Banks interests? Or clients who attempted to cheat / defraud the bank?
(vi) What is the latest position of those accounts? Do they still have business links with Bank?
Whether present ED & CMD are aware of this issue?
(vii) Whether the Purchaser of HG was a signatory to the limit account?
(viii) Why such a big customer could not arrange at least Margin money for such a small amounted BG that was altered to crore?
(ix) Is the alteration made only in FIGURES or alteration is in words also?
Page 1 of 3(x) If alteration is in words also, is it with the internal help or without internal help? Whether signatures of Batik officials were forged? What was the action Bank had taken against purchaser of BC for this attempt?
(xi) What precaution/action Bank taken regarding forged signatures on BC?
(xii) With how many branches in India the purchaser or their sister concerns are continuing the business links?
(xiii) Is the Party bigger or the Bank? (Actually this was question by AGM ZO).
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. It is observed that the matter is not pertaining to Zonal Office-Delhi. Zonal Office-Delhi has not conducted any enquiry as referred in your application.
2. It is further observed that the incident / case referred in your letter is pertaining to Zonal Office -- Hubli and enquiry had been conducted by our Head Office.
3. In view of the above your application has been transferred vide our letter ZO/LEG/RTI/SATYS/PAD/OR/304/2011 Dt. 15/06/2011 to Deputy General Manager & Public Information Officer, Personnel Administration Division, Head Office, Mangalore for disposal.
Your application has also been forwarded to the Asst. General Manager & Public information Officer, Zonal Office-Hubli for necessary action and follow-up.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was provided to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
I am in receipt your appeal dt.30.09.2011 wherein you state that you have not received reply from CPIO Hubli/CPIO PAD Head Office to whom your RTI application dt.12.06,201 1 was transferred by CPIO, Delhi vide its letter dt.08.07.2011. Though your application was required to be disposed of by the CPIO to whom the same was transferred, I have to inform you that the information sought by you would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public authority and would be detrimental to the safely or preservation of the record in question, Hence the same is denied to be furnished U/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. K. Satyanarayan Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Shiv Kumar, CPIO & DGM;
The RTI application was transferred to Zonal Office Hubli and PAD Head Office on 08/07/2011. Both the PIOs did not bother to respond to it at all, to the Appellant. The FAA on 10 October 2011stated in his order that the information being sought by the Appellant was voluminous and hence denied the information claiming exemption under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The FAA has displayed complete ignorance of the law. Section 7(9) cannot be a reason for denial but only obligates that the information would be provided in another format. The Appellant has really sought voluminous information spread over 09 pages but is now restricting it to the following:
1- Query 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7 which is on page 7 of his application.
It is apparent that the bank has handled the RTI application in a very poor manner. The appellant has been unnecessarily harassed and has have to file two appeals and wait for the information. The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act is awarding a compensation of Rs.3000/- to the Appellant to compensate him for the loss and detriment suffered by him filing the appeal and waiting for the information.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. Shiv Kumar, CPIO & DGM to obtain the information under Section 5(4) and provide it to the Appellant as directed above before 10 February 2012.
The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.3000/- as compensation is sent to the Appellant before 15 March 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 13 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Page 3 of 3