Sham Sunder vs Punjab National Bank on 8 August, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sham Sunder vs Punjab National Bank on 8 August, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 20.10.2016 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 03.06.2016 and first appeal dated 22.08.2016:-

(i) Please provide the information/guidelines depicting therein that the bank was empowered to claim subsidy in Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme of central Govt., in respect of advance made on the basis of allotment of tender by the Govt. under the peg scheme of FCI.

Page 1 of 4

(ii) Record of disposal of email dated 30/03/2016 (copy enclosed).

(iii) Record of disposal of email dared 19/08/2015 (copy enclosed).

(iv) Record of disposal of email dated 02/09/2018 (copy enclosed).

(v) Record of disposal of email dated 22/07/2015 (copy enclosed).

(vi) Record of disposal of email dated 15/07/2015 (copy enclose).

(vii) Record of disposal of email dated 06/07/2015 (copy enclosed).

(viii) Record of disposal of email dated 04/06/2016 (copy enclosed).

(ix) Copy of the record of bank vehicle submitted to GSAD by CO Bathinda since 2009 as per the guidelines circulated by the GSAD no 25/2015.

(x) Please provide the copy of the guidelines depicting there in that reimbursement made to staff for which the bank has no record except undertaking of employee is not taxable in the hand of the employee and no tds is required to be deducted by the employer.

(xi) Copy of the record vides which extension was granted to director FTC Mehraj (Punjab).

(xii) Copy of the guidelines vides which power was given to give extension beyond 65 year of age to the director of FTC.

(xiii) Copy of the record vides which lump sum conveyance was granted to the director FTC Mehraj.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 03.06.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Dwarka, New Delhi seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 06.08.2016. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.08.2016. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 20.10.2016 before this Commission which is under consideration.

Page 2 of 4

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 20.10.2016 inter alia on the grounds that the response provided by the CPIO is unsatisfactory.

4. The CPIO replied to the appellant vide letter dated 06.08.2016 and provided point-wise reply. The information with respect to point no. 9 of the RTI application was denied under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act and stated that information pertaining to point no. 10 of RTI application was not covered under the definition of section 2 (f) of RTI Act.

5. The appellant was present and on behalf of the respondent S/Shri Ranjit Singh, Chief Manager and Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Dwarka, Delhi, attended the hearing in person. 5.1. The appellant submitted that he has asked for the guidelines wherein the bank was empowered to claim subsidy in Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme of Central Government in respect of advance made on the basis of allotment of tender by the Government under the peg scheme of FCI. The respondent while defending the reply given by them vide CPIO's letter dated 6.8.2016 and 1st Appellate Authority letter dated 6.10.2016.

5.2. The respondent inter alia submitted that appellant has not made any investment nor he has claimed any subsidy. He has not brought out as to which account he was talking that the subsidy was claimed by the bank under PEG scheme. In the absence of the specific account number of specific information it may not be possible to pin-point the instance of such claim. 5.3. Perusal of records reveals that reply has been given by the respondent and whatever information/guidelines were sought have been given. With respect to point no. 2 to 16, para-wise reply have been given. The remaining information was either exempted under the provision of Section 8(1) (d) and not falling within the Page 3 of 4 definition of information of 2(f) of the RTI Act. With respect to Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme propounded by the appellant, the respondent had provided the guidelines under the PEG scheme which was provided through NABARD. In the absence of specific instance of such claims the query remained hypothetical. The appellant failed to bring out as to whether he had made any investiment under the so called scheme and irregularities claiming of the Capital Investment Subsidy given by the Central Government for Construction of Rural Godowns under Central Sector Scheme.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that due reply has been given by the respondent and there is 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) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 08.08.2019 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission