Rajpal Singh vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 17 August, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajpal Singh vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 17 August, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 30.06.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 24.01.2020 and first appeal dated 13.02.2020:-

Page 1 of 3

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 24.01.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Prathama UP Gramin Bank, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.01.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrievedby the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.02.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 17.02.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved bythat, the appellant filed second appeal dated 30.06.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 30.06.2020 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 vide letter dated 30.01.2020 replied that information sought pertained to third party and hence the same was exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide order dated 17.02.2020 requested the appellant to submit the copy of the RTI application so that the appeal could be disposed of appropriately.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Anuj Kumar Manglik, CPIO, Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank, Amroha, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was implicated in false cases and the documents sought was related to his case only which would help in getting the justice in the court. He further submitted that a false case was filed against him and being affected party information sought should have been provided by the bank.

Page 2 of 3

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to third party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, exemption was claimed under section 8 (1) (j) 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 the action was taken against the appellant on the basis of some irregularities done in the aforesaid accounts. The appellant was adversely affected due to certain irregularities in the alleged account and thus, he was not a stranger. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the RTI application be revisited and revised point-wise information/reply may be given to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 17.08.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO REGIONAL MANAGER PRATHAMA UP GRAMIN BANK AZAD ROAD, NEAR MADHO CINEMA, AMROHA-244221 THE First Appellate Authority General Manager PRATHAMA UP GRAMIN BANK HEADOFFICE :

RAMGANGA VIHAR, PHASE-2, MURADABAD-244001 Shri Rajpal Singh, Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission