Central Information Commission
Mr.B Venkateswara Rao vs Andhra Bank on 27 June, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001449/19372
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001449
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao,
Door No. 1-29-25,
Sri Laxminarasinnaswamy Temple,
Nazarpet, Tenali- 522201
Respondent : Mr. N. S. N. Badji
PIO & Sr. Manager (LAW) Andhra Bank Legal Department, Head Office - Nagarampalem, Guntur- 522004 RTI application filed on : 04/11/2011 PIO replied : 03/12/2011 First appeal filed on : 06/01/2012 First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 27/04/2012 Information Sought:
1. Does it not expedient for the bank authorities concerned to verify and ensure that everything is in the points after the customer leaves the locker room?
2. In the period 1-10-11 to 28-10-2011 no efforts to have been evinced to notice the fact of tempering of the locker. Can the reasons for this lapse on the part of the concerned authorities be permissible as per bank's stature rules?
3. Does it not require causing an immaculate intensive check of all the locking devices and ensuring safety in a foolproof manner by the Banking officials concerned just before they leave precincts of the Bank each day?
4. Are there any specific rules allowing the bank authorities to engage an unauthorized mechanic for the purpose?
5. Had there been strict surveillance of the bank officials concern throughout the operation or this repaired word?
6. Are there any rules under Bank's Statute to allow a private person in the locker room without the surveillance of the bank officials?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
No such record which has the reply of your asked question (numbered 1,3&5) is with PIO. For question number 2,4&6, no such rules exist for bank.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): Not Enclosed.Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao on video conference from NIC-Guntur Studio; Respondent: Mr. N. S. N. Badji, PIO & Sr. Manager (LAW) on video conference from NIC-Guntur Studio;
The PIO states that the Appellant was not seeking any information which would be available on any records. Since no information which would be available on the records has been sought by the Appellant, no information can be provided.
The appellant states that he should get a copy of the manual/rules for operating a locker by customers.
Decision:
The Appeal is partially allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide an attested copy of the Manual/Rules as directed above to the Appellant before 15 July 2012.
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 27 June 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(MB) Page 2 of 2