Central Information Commission
Umesh Chand Goyal vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 25 September, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/135944
Umesh Chand Goyal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: UCO Bank,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15.04.2023 FA : 20.06.2023 SA : 25.08.2023
CPIO : 20.05.2023 FAO : 28.06.2023 Hearing : 04.09.2024
Date of Decision: 24.09.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"I am a Founder Member and first Secretary of the above name society which was registered under Society Registration Act 1860 vide registration No. 507 on 12.06.1995, copy of Registration Certificate enclosed for your ready reference. With the promulgation of Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act 2012 (Haryana Act No.1 of 2012) referred to in brief as HRRS Act, the Byelaws as per Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Rules 2012 (HRRS Rules) were registered with District Registrar of Societies, Faridabad on 30.0g.2013 vide Page 1 of 4 Registration No.HR/01912013/ 00549, copy of Registration Certificate is enclosed tor your ready reference.
The above society is maintaining account(s) with your branch/bank. I am sure that the operations of the account would have been permitted by your bank as per the provisions contained in the Byelaws of the Society and also the HRRS Act and the HRRS Rules....
...... In view of the above, I request you in public interest, under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, for the following information/documents:
(i) Documents filed with your bank/branch while opening the account
(ii) Documents filed with your bank/branch after re-registration of the Society under the HRRS Act,
(iii) Documents filed with your bank/branch for election of the society for the posts authorized for operations/transactions on the account and change of authorized signatories
(iv) Approval from the District Registrar of Societies, Faridabad, filed for approval of the Governing Body of the Society post every election.
(v) Mode of operations on the account."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) "As per information received from the Branch, you the applicant is not the authorized signatory in the account in the name of Vaish Samaj Sector 28,29,30, 31 Faridabad. Further, no document is produced thot shows you, the applicant, one of the existing Office bearers of the said society. As such the information is protected under Section 8(1) of RTI Act, 2005, as the information required in your RTI application is held by us in fiduciary relationship.
(ii) Same as above.
(iii) Same as above.
(iv) Same as above.
Page 2 of 4
(v) Same as above."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 28.06.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.08.2023 stating inter alia as under:
"The Appellant is Founder Member and first Secretary of the Society, which is known to the CPIO and the FAA. The Appellant sought information pertaining to the society which a welfare society registered under HRRS Act, with the Byelaws as per Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Rules 2012 (HRRS Rules). The information sought is not a confidential information, even if held by the CPIO in fiduciary capacity and has been sought in larger public interest. The information was sought by Founder Member and every member of the society has liberty to see the information from the society itself..."
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Neha Gupta, Chief Manager & CPIO along with Manish Verma, Asst. Manager attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant reiterated the information sought for in the RTI Application and argued that the same concerns a welfare society as has been explained in the grounds of second appeal above.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant, and submitted that as per the bank records, the Appellant is not an authorized signatory of the averred account. However, upon Commission's intervention suggesting that the CPIO could have asked for the consent of the authorized signatory considering the fact that the Appellant claims to be the founder member of the averred society, the CPIO agreed to abide by the order of the Commission in this regard.
Page 3 of 48. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, directs the CPIO to process Section 11 of the RTI Act in the instant matter by seeking for the consent of the authorized signatory/third party and provide a revised reply to the Appellant. In the considered opinion of the bench, if the Appellant were the founding members of the averred Society, the authorized signatory ought not have any objection to the disclosure of the generic nature of the information as sought for in the RTI Application. The revised reply of the CPIO as directed shall be provided to the Appellant within 30 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 24.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO UCO Bank, CPIO & AGM, Law Department, Zonal Office: Delhi, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
2. Umesh Chand Goyal Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)