Central Information Commission
Y N Chandru vs Canara Bank on 4 October, 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/CANBK/A/2023/129399
Y. N. Chandru ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. Canara Bank, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Mandya
2. Canara Bank,
Bengaluru
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.03.2023 FA : 19.04.2023 SA : 04.07.2023
CPIO : 20.03.2023 FAO : 19.05.2023 Hearing : 25.09.2024
Date of Decision: 03.10.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Kindly refer the Notification given by AGM, Canara Bank, Circle Office, 86, M.G. Road, Bangaluru -560 001 in Prajavani and Deccan Herald Dtd.
14.02.2023 Calling offers to provide 1500 Sqft space for Canara Bank Yeliyury Branch, Mandya Tq, Xerox copies of paper publication enclosed,
(ii) Kindly provide the below mentioned information / documents.
Page 1 of 4a) Permission obtained from Hon'ble Govt. of India and Reserve Bank of India.
b) Order passed by the Head Office of Canara Bank, H.O. J.C. Road, Bangaluru.
c) Proposed submitted by the Manager Canara Bank, Yeliyuru Branch, Mandya Tq, / District.
d) Any other Information/ documents related to above issues.
e) Tenders/offers received approximately from 01.01.2022 to 14.2.2023.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship and where no larger public interest is involved is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act 2005.
The information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, is exempted from disclosure under 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
As the information sought by you fall under the exempted category under Section 8(1)(e) & 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 and as you have not indicated in your RT! application that the information sought is in the larger public interest, we are unable to provide the requested information."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 19.05.2023 stated that:
"In reply to your RTI application we would like to Inform you that we have received 10 tenders/offers against the paper publication to provide space for Canara Bank, Yeliyur Branch.
With respect to the rest of the queries we wish to inform you that the Information sought by you fall under the exempted category under Section 8(1) (e) & 8 (1)
(j) of RTI Act 2005 and as you have not indicated in your RTI application that Page 2 of 4 the information sought is in the larger public interest, we are unable to provide the requested information."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.07.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pradep Kumar Mishra, Divisional Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that initially the then CPIO had denied the information u/s 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI, Act, to the appellant. However, upon receipt of the hearing notice of the Commission, an additional revised reply has been provided to the appellant on 23.09.2024, wherein, complete information has been furnished including necessary enclosures. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the appellant.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that upon receipt of the hearing notice of the Commission, the respondent has provided complete information to the appellant on 23.09.2024. Further, the Commission expressed its displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO for having given a wrong response initially to the above mentioned RTI application. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining why the correct information was not provided earlier, along with the comments of the First Appellate Authority by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 4Copy 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: 03.10.2024
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 PIO Canara Bank, Regional Office, No. 1124, M B Road, Arale Sangappa Complex, Mandya - 571401
2. The PIO Canara Bank, Circle office, 86, MG Road, Bengluru-560001
3. Y. N. Chandru Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)