Souren Dutt vs Canara Bank on 23 December, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Souren Dutt vs Canara Bank on 23 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 23.05.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 02.03.2015 and first appeal dated 17.03.2015:-

(a) Detail concerning of current account no. 617 arising out of OCC (overdraft cash credit) account no. 507 which are maintain at your Hatibagan Market branch in the said name and style.

(b) Under which rule and section of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the guideline laid down by the principal bank i.e. Reserve Bank of India for that the concerned Branch Manager taken blank stamp paper of rupees only.

(c) Photostat copy of all stamp paper which was signed the appellant and stamped by his company's seal taken by the said branch manager.

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 02.03.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, Kolkata, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.03.2015 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 17.03.2015. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 07.04.2015 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 23.05.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 23.05.2019 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 vide letter dated 10.03.2015 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "Current account no. 617 of the respondent's Hati Began Market Branch is maintained by M/s S G Company, 171 A Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata - 700006. In the second part of point no. (a), the appellant has raised certain allegation which is not information as defined under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(i) No information is available on record as to taken of blank stamp paper vale of Rs.

50. There is no such rule or section on record under which any branch manager can take blank stamp paper.

(ii) There is no such stamp paper available on record for current account no. 617 of our Hatibagan Market Branch, Kolkata."

The FAA vide order dated 07.04.2015 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Suryamani Behra, Divisional Manager & CPIO, Canara Bank, Bangalore Urban attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the concerned Branch Manager had taken blank stamp paper of Rs. 50/- duly signed and stamped by him at the time of sanctioning of loan to his firm. He further submitted that he had repaid the loan amount along with the interest. However, statement of his loan account as well as blank stamp paper submitted to the branch was not given to him.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise information to the appellant on 10.03.2015 wherein they categorically informed that as per their record no blank stamp paper of Rs. 50/- was taken from the appellant. Further, they stated that statement of account was not demanded by the appellant in his RTI application hence the same could not be given.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that point-wise reply was given to the appellant vide letter dated 10.03.2015. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that as per their record no blank stamp paper of Rs. 50/- was taken from the appellant whereas the appellant alleged that he had submitted the blank stamp paper to the branch and the bank might misuse it. In view of the above, the respondent may revisit the RTI application and provide complete statement of the appellant's OCC account and they may also file an affidavit before the Commission deposing that no blank stamp paper of Rs. 50/- was taken from the appellant; a copy of that affidavit be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

                                                                             सुरेश चं ा)
                                                          (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 23.12.2021
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

                                                                                 Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : CANARA BANK,
CIRCLE OFFICE
21, CAMAC STREET,
 KOLKATA -700016.


FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE
21, CAMAC STREET,
KOLKATA -700016.

SH. SOUREN DUTT




                             Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission