Central Information Commission
Shri.V Balasubramanian vs Indian Bank on 25 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067
Tel No: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001332/SG/14263
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001332/SG
Relevant Facts Emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. V. Balasubramaniam
12, Vadasannathi Street
Tiruvannamalai- 606 601
Respondent : Mr. T. Chandrashekhar
Public Information Officer & AGM Indian Bank 66, Rajaji Salai Chennai, Tamil Nadu RTI Application filed on : 01/10/2009 PIO Replied on : 29/10/2009 First Appeal filed on : 20/11/2009 Order of the FAA : 10/12/2009 Second Appeal filed on : 26/11/2010 Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Provide the number of applications Our Circle Office, Vellore had not received any received from Tiruvannamalai Bar/ application from Tiruvannamalai Bar/ Advocate Advocate Association since January 2005 Association. Our Tiruvannamalai branch has from inclusion of their name for recommended 7 advocates for empanelment since empanelment. 2005.
2. The entire copies of said applications, The information sought by you is related to third Bank Official's notes , recommendation parties and internal matter hence not provided. letters annexed there to from VIPS However, we inform you that the empanelment of including the decision taken till date. advocates is done as per the stipulated procedure/RBI Guidelines.
3. The details of extra considerations apart We inform you that no extra consideration is playing from being an advocate of good standing role in the empanelment of advocate other than good which played vital role in selecting standing, knowledge in legal and banking matters of particular members of the Bar for inclusion the advocates sought to be empanelled in the Bank's in the empanelment. panel.
Grounds of the First Appeal The Appellant has stated that the reply given by the PIO is vague and much of the information is concealed.
Order of the First Appellate Authority The First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the PIO.
Grounds of Second Appeal The Appellant has stated that the information sought has not been provided. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Public Information Officer & AGM on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
The respondent states that this matter has been decided in appeal no. CIC/SM/A/2010/000893 on 14/02/2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is infructuous.
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 25 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)