Surendra Kumar Yadav vs Punjab National Bank on 6 July, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Surendra Kumar Yadav vs Punjab National Bank on 6 July, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 28.12.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 25.09.2021 and first appeal dated 20.10.2021:-

(i) सादर िनवेदन है क ाथ को अपने बचत खाता सं या -खाता खुलने से लेकर सन २०२०, माच तक उपरो अिधिनयम के तहत मािणत छाया ित statement देने क कृ पा क जाये | बचत खाता सं या *************४६२७ है |

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 25.09.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Faizabad, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not give any reply to the appellant. Aggrievedby the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.10.2021. The First Appellate Authority(FAA)did not pass any order. Aggrieved bythat, the appellant filed second appeal dated 28.12.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

Page 1 of 3

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 28.12.2021 inter alia on the grounds that no reply was received from the respondent. 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. Perusal of the records submitted by the appellant while filing the second appeal dated 28.12.2021 reveals that neither the CPIO nor the FAA provided any information or any reply to the appellant.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri S.D. Pathak, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Faizabad attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that no RTI application was received at their end and after the first appeal due reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 24.11.2021. The respondent further submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertains to personal information of third party (Satyendra Kumar) which was protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

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 provided to the appellant on his RTI application vide letter dated 24.11.2021. Further, the appellant had sought for account details of third party which was held by the respondent public authority in fiduciary capacity and the respondent had claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant neither made any written submission nor was present before the Commission to contest the submissions of the respondent or to substantiate his claims further. With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 05.07.2023 Page 2 of 3 Authenticated true copy आर. सीताराममूत ) R. Sitarama Murthy ( उपपंजीयक) Dy. Registrar ( 011-26181927(०११ २६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ACHARYA NARENDRA DEV NAGAR, BEHIND DEVA HOSPITAL, NEAR KOHINOOR PALACE, REEDGANJ, FAIZABAD, UP- 224001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ACHARYA NARENDRA DEV NAGAR, BEHIND DEVA HOSPITAL, NEAR KOHINOOR PALACE, REEDGANJ, FAIZABAD, UP- 224001 SH. SURENDRA KUMAR YADAV Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission