Central Information Commission
Mrnaveen Kumar Shrivastava vs Bank Of Baroda on 26 March, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000335/SH & CIC/VS/A/2013/000740/SH (Two Similar Cases)
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 26th March 2014
Date of decision : 26th March 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri Naveen Kumar Srivastava,
C/o Nayab Tehsildaar Shahar,
Tehsil Sadar, Varanasi
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Bank of Baroda, Regional OfficeMalikmau,
Sultanpur Road, Raibareli 229001
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Varanasi.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Parveen Kumar, DGM (CPIO) was present at
the NIC Studio, Sultanpur.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000335/SH This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 23.9.2011 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on three points concerning LTC availed of by an employee of the bank. The CPIO responded on 3.10.2011, denying the information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and the FAA's order dated 4.11.2011, in which he endorsed the CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 25.1.2012.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000740/SH
2. This file deals with an appeal filed to the Commission by the Appellant on 19.4.2013, but with exactly the same set of documents as the appeal on File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000335/SH.
3. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny information under Section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act. On being asked to make a submission regarding any larger public interest, warranting the disclosure of this information, the Appellant stated that the third party employee of the bank had availed of LTC based on a false declaration. In this context, we note that the above unsubstantiated allegation of the Appellant does not establish any larger public interest. Accordingly, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny information in this case under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
4. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) 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) Deputy Registrar