Central Information Commission
Mr.Sadanand U vs Dena Bank on 25 September, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TEL; 01126179548
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001545/04911
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001545
Dated: 25.9.2013
Appellant: Shri Sadanand U Gawargur, 41/B30, Angarki Coop. Housing Society Ltd, R.S.C.55, Sector 5, Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai400067 Respondent: Public Information Officer, DENA BANK, Mumbai Suburban Regional Office, Sharda Bhawan, JVPD Scheme, VM Mehta Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai400056 Date of Hearing: 25.9.2013 O R D E R RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 9.3.2012 seeking information about the introducer, certified copies of the documents submitted, date of opening with present status and authenticated bank statements in respect of two accounts. No reply of the CPIO is available on the file.
2. On not receiving any reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.5.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA rejected the appeal on 6.7.2012 on the ground of (i) the appellant did not pay the prescribed fee under the RTI Act; and (ii) the information sought pertains to third party information/personal information. The appellant approached the Commission on 20.9.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant, through his RTI application of 9.3.2012, was seeking information about two accounts, one group gratuity account and the other was current account. The respondent stated that the appellant was seeking information about the introducers, the documents submitted to the bank at the time of opening, dates of opening the accounts, their present status and the present operators of these account.
5. The respondent stated that a reply was sent to the appellant on 6.7.2012 denying the information as the appellant did not pay the prescribed fees in the right mode and the information sought was third party/personal information. Decision
6. The decision of the FAA is upheld, as it was in conformity with the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commission Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer