Shiv Shankar Gupta vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 18 January, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shiv Shankar Gupta vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 18 January, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 06.08.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 12.12.2018 and first appeal dated 02.02.2019:-

 यह क ाम पंचायत कुं जारा, तहसील- कु नकु री, के खाता से मूल भूत योजना एवं 13,14 वे िव योजना अंतगत वष 2013-14 म राशी आहरण के समय तुत ाम सभा ताव एवं चेको क स पूण स यािपत ित ।

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.12.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Chattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Raigarh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.04.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved Page 1 of 3 with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.02.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 06.08.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 06.08.2019 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 01.04.2019 while relying upon the observations of the Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No. 4336 of 2017 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"The second appeal filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected, as otherwise, every practicing advocate would invoke the provision of the RTI Act for getting information in behalf of his client, which situation does not advice the object of the scheme of the RTI Act the laudable object of the RTI Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kind of information in order to promote his practice. In such circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent, dismissing the second appeal filed by petitioner does not suffer from infirmity and does not call for interference."

The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Keshav Kumar, CPIO, Rural Gramin Bank, Raigarh attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought copies of applications and cheques produced by Gram Sabha authorities for different policies. However, the appellant had not demonstrated any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of the information pertaining to third parties.

Page 2 of 3

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 01.04.2019. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections therefor, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. 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: 12.01.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : CHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK REGIONAL OFFICE ,SHARDA NIKETAN, MITTHU MUDA ROAD,HEERA NAGAR, IN FRONT OF FCI GODOWN RAIGARH - 496001 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK REGIONAL OFFICE ,SHARDA NIKETAN, MITTHU MUDA ROAD,HEERA NAGAR, IN FRONT OF FCI GODOWN RAIGARH - 496001 SH. SHIV SHANKAR GUPTA Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission