Central Information Commission
Vimla S Gosai vs Canara Bank on 25 October, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001580 & CIC/SH/A/2016/000250
(Two Same Cases)
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 20th October 2016
Date of decision : 20th October 2016
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Vimla S. Gosai,
A-5, Maruthidham Society,
Near Chhani Gurudwara, Vadodara,
Gujarat- 391740
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Canara Bank,
Circle Office, Ground Floor, Narayan
Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat- 380009,
RTI Application filed on : 22/12/2014
CPIO replied on : 22/01/2015
First Appeal filed on : 30/01/2015
First Appellate Authority order on : 09/03/2015
nd
2 Appeal received on : 12/06/2015
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Alok Chowdhary, AGM was present at the
NIC Studio, Ahmedabad.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001580
Information sought
This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on eight points regarding statement of PF of her husband late Shri Shiv mohan S. Gosai, details of the nominee, payment of PF and other dues to the nominee and action taken on her representations.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001580 & CIC/SH/A/2016/000250 The CPIO reply The CPIO gave a point wise reply to the Appellant. Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority The FAA provided some additional information to the Appellant. Grounds of the Second Appeal Not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondents. File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/000250 This file contains an appeal recieved by the Commission on 25.1.2016, with the same facts as the appeal on File no. CIC/SH/A/2015/001580. Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision The Appellant was not present in spite of a written notice having been sent to her. The Respondents stated that the Appellant's late husband had made her stepson as nominee in his PF account. He did submit an application to change the nomination to the Appellant. However, it did not have proper witnesses and was not accepted by the bank. Therefore, the Appellant's stepson has continued to be the nominee. The Appellant has a dispute with him and was advised to resolve the matter with the stepson for release of the PF money. However, this has not happened so far. They further submitted that the Appellant's RTI application was responded to point-wise by the CPIO on 22.1.2015.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001580 & CIC/SH/A/2016/000250
2. Having considered the records and the submissions of the Respondents, we note that the CPIO gave a point-wise reply. The issue of dispute between the Appellant and her stepson cannot be resolved under the RTI Act.
3. In view of the foregoing, intervention by the Commission is not considered necessary in this matter.
4. With the above observations, the two appeals are disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001580 & CIC/SH/A/2016/000250