Central Information Commission
Mr.Om Prakash Singh vs Allahabad Bank on 6 July, 2010
Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001274 dated 25032009
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 6 July 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Om Prakash Singh
Vill - Bahuara, Post - Sona,
Gopal Pur, Thana Gourichak,
Patna.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Allahabad Bank,
Zonal Office Patna,
Gaya Road,
Patna.
The Appellant was present in person.
No one was present on behalf of the Respondent.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 25 March 2009, requested the CPIO for a few pieces of information regarding the functioning of the Kandap branch of the bank. On not getting any reply from the CPIO in the stipulated time, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 14 May 2009. In his order dated 6 June 2009, the Appellate Authority directed the CPIO to furnish the information. In compliance of the Appellate Authority's order, the CPIO furnished some information in his letter dated 15 June 2009, while declining one request by claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (d) of the Right to Information Act. The Appellant not satisfied with the information provided, has approached the CIC in a second appeal.
CIC/SM/A/2009/001274
3. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was present in the Patna studio of the NIC. The Respondents were not present in spite of notice. We heard the submissions of the Appellant. We also carefully considered the order of the Appellate Authority and the information provided by the CPIO consequent to the direction given by the Appellate Authority. At the outset, it is noted that the CPIO had responded to the Appellant only on 4 May 2009, nearly 2 weeks beyond the stipulated period. Although he has claimed that he received the RTI application only on 15 April 2009, it is not clear why the branch had not sent this application to the CPIO in time although the application would have been received by the branch soon after it was sent.
4. In regard to the information sought by the Appellant, we find that some of the information which could have been easily provided without any problem, the CPIO decided not to. We now direct him to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the appropriate information against the queries 2 to 4, 6, 12 and 13. Besides, we also direct him to forward to the Appellant the photocopies of the various guidelines sought by him in his queries no.7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 free of cost. If any of these guidelines is not available, the CPIO shall clearly state so in his reply.
5. In regard to the delay on the part of the CPIO in responding to the Appellant, we direct him to obtain the explanation of the branch manager concerned about the exact date on which he had received the RTI application and the date on which he had transferred it to the designated CPIO. If the gap between these two dates is more than five days, the branch manager must explain the reasons for his failing. We will decide on imposing penalty in terms of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act after considering his explanation. We must receive a detailed communication from the CPIO CIC/SM/A/2009/001274 containing the explanation of the branch manager within 15 working days from the receipt of this order.
6. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/A/2009/001274