Rita Devi Vishwakarma vs United Bank Of India on 26 December, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rita Devi Vishwakarma vs United Bank Of India on 26 December, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 08.03.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through her RTI application dated 27.11.2017 and first appeal dated 25.01.2018:

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 27.11.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) (CPIO), United Bank of India,, Jamtali, Pratapgarh, U.P., seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 01.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.01.2018.

25.01.2018 The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 08.03.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 08.03.2018 inter alia on the grounds that incomplete information was provided by the CPIO CPIO.. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and impose penalty on the CPIO/FAA as per the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.01.2018 gave a point-wise wise reply to the RTI application. The FAA did not pass any order order.

5. The appellant's 's authorized representative, Advocate, Shri Ram Prashad Dubey and on behalf of the respondent, respondent, Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Chief Manager and Shri Page 2 of 4 Avinash, Assistant Manager (Law), United Bank of India, Lucknow attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant's authorized representative while presenting the case inter alia submitted that complete information had not been provided by the respondent even after lapse of around two years from the RTI application. He also submitted that proper RTI application fee had already been provided by the appellant, hence, the demand of additional fee by the respondent was arbitrary. 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already given point wise reply vide letter dated 01.01.2018 wherein they asked the appellant to obtain the information on point nos. (1) & (4) of the RTI application from the concerned branch after depositing the fee @ Rs. 2/- per page as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that point wise reply/information has been given by the respondent vide letter dated 01.01.2018. It is also noted that the demand of additional fee by the respondent may not be legally sustainable as the CPIO might not demand for additional fee when the reply was given after the prescribed period of 30 days. Hence, the respondent is directed to collect the information sought on point nos. (1) & (4) of the RTI application from the concerned branch and provide the same to the appellant free of cost, within 10 days 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.

S/d (Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner(सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date:24.12.2019 Authenticated true copy (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

UNITED BANK OF INDIA LUCKNOW REGIONAL OFFICE, 4-A, HABIBULLAH ESTATE, HAZRATGANJ, LUCKNOW - 226 001 THE F.A.A, United Bank Of India, HEAD OFFICE, 11, HEMANTA BASU SARANI, KOLKATA - 700 001 RITA DEVI VISHWAKARMA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission