Central Information Commission
Mrmannu Singh vs Vijaya Bank on 8 December, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000026
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 8th December 2014
Date of decision : 8th December 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri Mannu Singh,
Advocate, 152/3, Ekta Park,
Mangalpandeynagar, Meerut
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Vijaya Bank,
Office of Chief Manager, Sotiganj, Meerut The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Tej Pal Singh, CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Meerut.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Though registered as a complaint, we are treating this matter as an appeal because in his communication dated 5.6.2013 to the CIC, the Appellant had described it as second appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act.
2. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 29.2.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on seven points. Not having received any reply from the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 5.6.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 13.6.2013.
3. The Appellant submitted that the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar (points 6 and 7 of the RTI application) were dispensed with in an irregular manner by the bank and that he had sought the information, as per his RTI application, in the above context. He further submitted that Shri Rajesh Kumar lost his labour dispute case with the bank because the information sought by him (the Appellant) in his RTI application was not provided within the stipulated timeframe. He prayed for provision of the information sought by him, imposition of penalty on the CPIO and award of compensation to him.
4. The Respondents submitted that the RTI application was submitted to their Sotiganj, Meerut Branch and was not forwarded by that branch to the CPIO, who was located in Lucknow. Therefore, it could not be responded to. They further submitted that some of the information sought by the Appellant was provided in the course of the labour dispute case, which was lost by Shri Rajesh Kumar. However, now the entire information sought by the Appellant will be provided to him.
5. We have considered the records and the submissions made by the Respondents before us. We direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the information sought by him in his RTI application dated 29.2.2013, within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information should be given free of cost.
6. We do not see any ground for award of compensation to the Appellant. The mere allegation of the Appellant, that Shri Rajesh Kumar lost the labour dispute case because of nonprovision of information by the Respondents in response to the RTI application, cannot become the ground for compensation. Shri Rajesh Kumar was at liberty to seek such information, as he needed to support his case, through the concerned court which considered the labour dispute. In any case, we do not see how the Appellant has suffered any loss to deserve compensation.
7. However, we note that no information has been provided so far to the RTI application dated 29.2.2013. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by Shri Tej Pal Singh, CPIO that a response could not be sent because the RTI application was not forwarded by the concerned branch to the CPIO. Therefore, we direct Shri Tej Pal Singh, nd February 2015 at 10.00 a.m. CPIO to appear before us again on 2 at Room No. 305, B Wing, Second Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 to explain the reasons for the branch not forwarding the application to the designated CPIO. During the hearing on 2.2.2015, Shri Tej Pal Singh should be accompanied by the concerned officer(s), who dealt with this application at the branch level.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar