Neeraj Jain vs Indian Bank on 11 May, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Neeraj Jain vs Indian Bank on 11 May, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 05.04.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 01.03.2021 and first appeal dated 19.03.2021:-

 A person participates in e-auctions/bids in multiple bids and he gave multiple IOI to the bank.

(i) Where IOI deposits in bank: DGM Office/Authorized office?

(ii) Does bank has power to club the multiple IOI of a bidder and transfer the funds to the other NPA account on the consent of the bidder/without consent of bidder?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 01.03.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 3 Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.03.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 19.03.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 29.03.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 05.04.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 05.04.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the 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 10.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "IOI (Banker's Pay Order) can be deposited in any branch of the Bank as it is an internal instrument.

(ii) Query is in the nature of seeking opinion/clarification from the CPIO which does not fall within the ambit of information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no reply/information is provided".

The FAA vide order dated 29.03.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Ms Sreeja Rani, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided the requisite information till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had raised queries in the nature of questions which were not covered within the definition of "information" under the provisions of section 2 (f) 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, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on Page 2 of 3 10.03.2021. Perusal of the RTI application revealed that the appellant raised a question and the answer to the same was not information in material form. That being so, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 10.05.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Indian Bank, Head Office No.66, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001 First Appellate Authority Indian Bank, Head Office No.66, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001 Shri Neeraj Jain Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission