Sunil Gupta vs Central Bank on 11 April, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sunil Gupta vs Central Bank on 11 April, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.12.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 16.09.2019 and first appeal dated 23.10.2019:-

 Information sought regarding Saving A/c No. 1252 new A/c No. *******388 in Central Bank of India from year 2008 to date of the RTI application.

(i) How or on what basis the "STOP STATUS" was deleted on 23.02.2010.

(ii) Photocopy of the new signature card updated with four names (including name of Sunil Gupta) Page 1 of 4

(iii) When the new signature card with 4 names was uploaded in 2010, the reasons for not showing the name of Sunil Gupta as account holder in the bank statement.

(iv) Photocopies of 19 cheques paid out during 25.03.2010 to 13.04.2010.

(v) The meaning of the noting "CA RT CHG" mentioned in the bank statement during 20.10.2010 to 19.08.2013.

(vi) On whose request and whose photos were attested by the bank on 23.08.2011.

(vii) The name and designation of the signatory in the certificate.

(viii) Photocopy of deposit slip of Chq. No. 432784 for Rs. 5,29,116/- deposited in this account on 04.04.2014.

(ix) The reason why the above mentioned cheque no. 432784 for Rs. 5,29,116/- was returned unpaid on 04.04.2014.

(x) Photocopy of the above cheque no. 432784 for Rs. 5,29,116/-, if this cheque is kept with bank.

(xi) If this cheque no. 432784 for Rs. 5,29,116/- is not with the bank, to whom this returned cheque was handed over and when, along with copy of the proof of this handing over.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 16.09.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.10.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.10.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 27.11.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 03.12.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 03.12.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Page 2 of 4 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 18.10.2019 denied the information stating that information sought was third party information, hence it could not be provided under clause (j) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 27.11.2019 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant's representative Shri Kumaran attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Hari Ram, CPIO and Ms. Swarnima Singh, Law Officer, Central Bank of India, Delhi attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that the appellant sought information Saving A/c No. 1252 new A/c No. *******388 was not third party information as he was one of the account holders/partners of the said account. Therefore, exemption claimed by the respondent was not applicable in his case.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that identical information was sought by the appellant through his another RTI application dated 16.09.2019. Further, they stated that the FAA vide order dated 01.01.2020 directed the CPIO to provide the information to the appellant after completing the KYC norms. They further submitted that still the KYC had not been done by the appellant. They informed that they were ready to provide the information subject to completion of KYC norms.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that although the CPIO had denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, the FAA vide order dated 01.01.2020 confirmed that the appellant was not third party. Moreover, the respondent during the course of hearing submitted that they were ready to part with the information subject to completion of KYC norms as they wanted be to sure that information would not go in the wrong hand. In view of the above, if the appellant complete the formalities of KYC, the Page 3 of 4 information sought may be provided to him, within three weeks 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.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 08.04.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, RO, DELHI NORTH, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI-110006 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, SORABJI BHAWAN, PLOT NO.4, BLOCK 54, DR D.B.GUPTA ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005 SHRI SUNIL GUPTA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission