Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sultan Singh vs Bank Of Baroda on 8 October, 2025

                                     के ीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/633264

Sultan Singh                                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Bandra (E), Mumbai                                         ... ितवादीगण/Respondents


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 05.06.2024               FA       : 14.07.2024             SA     : 02.08.2024

CPIO : 04.07.2024              FAO : 15.07.2024                  Hearing : 06.10.2025


Date of Decision:07.10.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Provide information on how many bank accounts have been opened with my Aadhaar number *******9508 till date, along with bank account number and date of account opening or date of KYC.

2. Provide information on how many mobile connections have been taken with my Aadhaar number ******9508 till today, i.e. 31.05.2024, along with mobile number, mobile operator and date of connection.

3. Provide information on whether any KYC or other activity has been done through OTP with my Aadhaar number ******9508 on 23 March 2024.

4. Provide information on where and with whom my Aadhaar number *****9508 is linked.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"As per UIDAI disclosure norms, Section 8(I) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 and in view of the confidential nature of demographic and biometric data (personal data of resident) only the resident to whom the data relates can seek the information. No other applicant can seek this information. No other applicant will be provided with any personal information related to a third party or any other resident to protect privacy and maintain confidentiality of residents enrolled under Aadhar program. Applicants may also be required to provide additional validation of identity in certain cases.

However, we have traced one Savings Bank account parked in following branch where you may receive further assistance:

Branch Name: Bank of Baroda- Balaghat, Rajasthan (Dist. Gangapur city) Bharatpur Region. Jaipur Zone."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 15.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.08.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent despite the notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sunil, DGM and CPIO & Ms. Charutha Joshi, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant sought information on the number of bank accounts linked with his aadhaar number along with date and KYC of the bank account linked therein. That as per their records one bank account was identified to be linked with the aadhaar number provided by the appellant and since they could not confirm on the appellant to be holder of the given aadhaar number and the identified bank account, they have not provided the bank account number sought in point no.1 and have disclosed only the branch details. The respondent further submitted that the appellant sought information on mobile number linked to his aadhaar number, KYC in point no.2-4 and the same is not available with them. Written submission dated 03.10.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record and relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:

"The above RTI Application was originally preferred before the CPIO, Department of Financial Services on 05/06/2024 vide Reference Number:

DOFSR/R/T/24/00891 and was transferred to the undersigned on 05.06.2024. Though, while transferring the RTI Application, it was stated that "As the information sought is closely related with SLBC Rajasthan, the RTI application is transferred to you under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 for providing information directly to you the applicant, with further request if the matter does not come within the purview of SLBC Rajasthan, it may be transferred to the Public Authority to which the subject matter is closely related, under intimation to the applicant." On receipt of the Application, the CPIO provided the details of the Branch where the account of the applicant was opened with the Bank, however due to identification issue, it was advised him to contact the respective Branch and obtain the other details such as account no. etc. From the above contents, it is clear that, the CPIO, Bank of Baroda has already provided the information as available with the Bank of Baroda and accordingly informed that one Bank account with Balaghat Branch, District Gangapur City, Rajasthan is opened with the above Adhar Card."

Upon hearing the submissions of the respondent w.r.t point no.2-4, the Commission opined that the respondent ought to have told explicitly that the sought information is not available with their department in their reply dated 04.07.2024 and the respondent accepted the same.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO gave an appropriate reply to the appellant w.r.t the point no.1 as the same pertains to their department and did not answer on point no.2-4 as the sought information is not available with their department. In view of the above, the respondent is advised to be vigilant and give explicit answer in future. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Also, the Commission finds that the copy of the Written submission of the respondent is not marked to the appellant and hence, the respondent is directed to serve a copy of their written submission dated 03.10.2025 on the appellant in compliance with point no. 4(a) of the Hearing Notice of the Commission within 15 days of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 07.10.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 2 Sultan Singh Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)