Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Arvind Kr Mishra vs Punjab National Bank on 17 August, 2022

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                          के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                                   Central Information Commission
                                      बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                    Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                    नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2020/675463

Arvind Kr Mishra                                                    ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
CPIO: Punjab National Bank
Dehradun                                                         ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI         :   07.05.2020          FA    : 08.06.2020            SA       : Nil

CPIO :          22.05.2020          FAO : 15.06.2020              Hearing : 13.07.2022


                                              CORAM:
                                        Hon'ble Commissioner
                                      SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                             ORDER

(17.08.2022)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non- receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 07.05.2020 and first appeal dated 08.06.2020:-

(i) How many applications have been received by Punjab National Bank, Indira Nagar Branch, Dehradun and Punjab National Bank CLPC, Dehradun under the COVID 19 stand by line of Credit Scheme of the bank as on 06.05.2020?
(ii) How many applications have been allowed by the Authority and please specify the details?
(iii) How many applications have been rejected by the authority and please specify the details?
Page 1 of 4
(iv) How many applications have been pending before the authority and please specify the details?
(v) What documents have been received along with date of receipt of documents against each allowed and disbursed application, specify the details?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.05.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Dehradun, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.05.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 08.06.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 15.06.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated Nil inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. 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. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.05.2020 replied to the RTI application and the same is reproduced as under.

Page 2 of 4

The FAA vide order dated 15.06.2020 stated that the CPIO had already provided the required information.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Kanchan Lohani, Chief Manager and CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Dehradun, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise information was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 22.05.2020. They further submitted that the FAA was also upheld the CPIO's reply vide order dated 15.06.2020.

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 given by the respondent vide letters dated 22.05.2020 and 15.06.2020. The appellant in his second appeal dated nil submitted that information provided by the respondent was incomplete. However, he did not explain as to how the information provided by the respondent was incomplete. Moreover, the appellant neither filed any written submission nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission is of the view that there is no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 17.08.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Punjab National Bank Circle Office, 1 Paltan Bazar, Dehradun-248001 Page 3 of 4 The First Appellate Authority Assistant General Manager Punjab National Bank Circle Office, 1, Paltan Bazaar, Dehradun-248001 Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra, Page 4 of 4