Debasis Mukherjee vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 27 October, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Debasis Mukherjee vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 27 October, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.05.2020 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 19.10.2019 and first appeal dated 07.12.2019:-

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.10.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply. Dissatisfied due to non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 07.12.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of first appeal vide its order dated 30.12.2020. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 27.05.2020 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.05.2020 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent failed to act as per section 6 (3) of RTI Act. 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 did not reply to the RTI application within the stipulated time period. The FAA vide his order dated 30.12.2020 held that the appellant had not deposited the requisite fee along with his RTI application, hence, his application was rightly rejected by the CPIO, HRD Division.

Page 2 of 4

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Ekramul Haque, CPIO, IDBI Bank, Bandra attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant while contesting his case informed that he has not received any information/reply till the date of hearing. The appellant further submitted that the RTI application was addressed to Vigilance Department of the bank and later he came to know that it was unnecessarily transferred to HR Department and the same was done without his knowledge/intimation. Also, according to the appellant, the HR Division had a conflict of interest, he apprehended that due to the said reasons, the correspondence were never sent to him.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia informed that there were communications from the respondent by the erstwhile CPIO dated 16.11.2019, 22.11.2019 and 26.12.2019. The respondent further informed that as the appellant had not paid the prescribed fees, the information could not be made available to him. Further, the present CPIO pleaded that some of the information sought was in the form of opinions, according to the respondent

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that there has been correspondence alleged to have been addressed to the appellant on 16.11.2019,22.11.2019 and 26.12.2019 addressed by the HR division which according to the appellant were never received by him. It may be noted that it is the responsibility of the CPIO to collect the information from the concerned department if the same is not available with them. However, one aspect which remains to be ascertained is with respect to payment of fee prescribed under RTI Act. The public authorities are under obligation to provide the information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. The appellant has claimed that he has not received any letter seeking payment of fees. In that eventuality, the presumption is that the respondent had failed to provide the information within the stipulated period. Taking a lenient view, the Commission directs the respondent to revisit Page 3 of 4 the RTI application, collect information, if any, if not available with them, from the concerned department and provide the same to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, free of cost. However, wherever the respondent feels that the information is in the form of opinion or seeking clarification, The CPIO may give reasons and say so while responding to the RTI application in tabulated form. With these orders and observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

SD/-

                                                                            सुरेश चं ा)
                                                         (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                         सूचना आयु )
                                              Information Commissioner (सू
                                                               दनांक/Date: 27.10.2020
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :
IDBI BANK LTD.
IDBI Tower, WTC Complex,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005

THE F.A.A,
IDBI BANK LTD.
IDBI Tower, WTC Complex,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005

DEBASIS MUKHERJEE




                                                                               Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission