Niranjan Chattopadhyay vs Bank Of Baroda on 23 December, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Niranjan Chattopadhyay vs Bank Of Baroda on 23 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 08.07.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 07.01.2019and first appeal dated 20.02.2019:-

(A) In regard to saving bank account being no. **********7909 in the name of "Pearl Drop Apartmen Owners Association Fund" is lying at BOB, Charu Market Branch, 9, D.P. Sasmal Road, Kolkata - 700033, West Bengal.

(i) Let the appellant know that Abhijit Dasgupta (Treasurer) operates and/or operated the said account from January 2017 to June 2018 single or Page 1 of 4 jointly? If he operates and/or operated the said account jointly, name of the persons with whom he operates and/or operated jointly?

(ii) If he operates and/or operated the said bank account singly, so my question is on the basis of which documents he operates and/or operated the said savings bank account singly? Supply me the authenticated copies of the said documents.

(B) Kindly allow the appellant to verify/inspect the said records as per Sec. 2

(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.01.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.02.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.02.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 20.03.2019 disposed of the first appeal. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO provided revised reply on point no. B of the RTI application. Aggrieved bythe same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 08.07.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 08.07.2019 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 04.02.2019 and the same is reproduced as under :-

(A) (i) "As per records available with branch the captioned account was not allowed to be operated single for the period. It was jointly operated by Abhijit Dasgupta and Indranil Mukhopadhyay.

(ii) Not applicable as account was not allowed to be operated singly.

Page 2 of 4

(B) Not applicable as account was not allowed to be operated singly".

The FAA vide order dated 20.03.2019 directed the CPIO to issue notice u/s 11 to the third party i.e., account holder "Pearl Drop Apartment Owners Association Fund"

regarding inspection of available records within 5 days from receipt of FAA's order and dispose the application on merit in the spirit of provision of RTI Act. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 09.04.2019 denied the information as the third party had not given his consent to disclose the information.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Govinda Vishwas, CPIO, Shri Deepak, Chief Manager, Shri Dinesh, Sr. Manager (Law), Bank of Baroda, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was not satisfactory. He further stated that his request for inspection of the records related to the account of Pearl Drop Apartment Owners Association Fund was arbitrarily denied by the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided information to the appellant vide letter dated 04.02.2019. They stated that in compliance of FAA's order, they had followed section 11 of the RTI Act and sought consent in writing from the account holder (Pearl Drop Apartment Owners Association Fund). However, they did not receive any instruction from Pearl Drop Apartment Owners Association Fund. Therefore, in the absence of consent from the concerned party, the respondent expressed their inability to facilitate inspection to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide their letters dated 04.02.2019 and 09.04.2019. The only issue raised by the appellant during the course of hearing was that he was not allowed for inspection of record related to the account of "Pearl Drop Apartment Owners Association Fund". The respondent stated that they had followed section 11 of the RTI Act but they did not Page 3 of 4 receive any instruction from the concerned party for allowing inspection to the appellant. Accordingly, they denied to provide inspection of record relating to the aforesaid account to the appellant. In view of the above, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 23.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

BANK OF BARODA KOLKATA METRO REGIONAL OFFICE, BARODA TOWER, PLOT NO. 38/2, BLOCK G.N. (4TH FLOOR), SEC. - V, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA - 700 091 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANK OF BARODA, KOLKATA METRO REGIONAL OFFICE, BARODA TOWER, PLOT NO. 38/2, BLOCK G.N. (4TH FLOOR), SEC. - V, SALT LAKE CITY SH. NIRANJAN CHATTOPADHYAY Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission