Vishal Daga vs Indian Overseas Bank on 25 September, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vishal Daga vs Indian Overseas Bank on 25 September, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 19.09.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 02.05.2018 and first appeal dated 29.05.2018:-

 The detailed service tenure of each individual who has served as Chariman, MD and CEO in all the Public Sector Banks. The list should state details Page 1 of 3 including their:-(a) names,(b) age as on the date of being appointed as Chairman/MD/CEO, (c) appointment/relieving dates as Chairman/MD/CEO and (d) months served under the abovementioned designations.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the Appellant filed an application dated 02.05.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 25.05.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 29.05.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the First Appeal vide its order dated 27.06.2018. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant has filed a Second Appeal dated 19.09.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 19.09.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 25.05.2018 stated that information sought for was vague, not clear and not specific as he had not mentioned the period of information. The FAA, vide its order dated 27.06.2018 denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

5. Both the parties remained absent.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, notes that the appellant in his RTI application did not specify the period of information and in the absence of which the information sought could not be furnished by the respondent. Hence, if the appellant provide specific period and make a representation in pursuance of this order, then the respondent may revisit the RTI application and provide revised reply/information Page 2 of 3 to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation from the respondent. With the above observations and directions and the appeal is disposed of.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु त) दनांक/Date: 24.09.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Central Office, P.B No.3765, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai, TAMIL NADU - 600 002 THE F.A.A, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, P.B No. 3765, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai, TAMIL NADU - 600002 VISHAL DAGA Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission