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 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajeev Chadha vs Corporation Bank on 4 September, 2020

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/CORPB/A/2018/152007

Rajeev Chadha                                                    ... अपीलकता /Appellant


                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम


CPIO: Union Bank of India,
New Delhi.                                                  ... ितवादीगण/Respondents


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 14.05.2018                 FA    : 29.06.2018              SA     : 13.08.2018

CPIO : 19.06.2018                FAO : 26.07.2018                Hearing : 21.08.2020


                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                         ORDER

(03.09.2020)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 13.08.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 14.05.2018 and first appeal dated 29.06.2018:-

(i) certified copy of the letter dated 30.12.2017 written to the branch manager, corporation Bank, Naraina New Delhi by the vice principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidhyalaya, Naraina14 shift (1720002) regarding transfer of 17 Month Rs 2,22,000/- of children of construction workers.
Page 1 of 3
(ii) certified copy of the letter dated 22.03.2018 under dispatch no.

SBV/Nar/2018/137 written Manager, Corporation Bank, Narayana 1720002 regarding transfer of amount of Rs 2,22,000/- of children of construction workers.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 14.05.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 19.06.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 29.06.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed first appeal vide order dated 26.07.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 13.08.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 13.08.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide requisite information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.06.2018 denied information under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Chief Manager(Law), Union Bank of India, Delhi, attended the hearing in person 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information was regarding the letter written by Vice Principal, Sarvodaya Bal Vidhyalaya in respect of the scholarships of the students and the letters were missing from the records of their school. The appellant further submitted that different teachers including him were given the responsibility to maintain the records and therefore the same was required from the bank. 5.2. The respondent while defending their reply 19.06.2018 submitted that the appellant was neither the authorized representative of the school's account opened in their Branch nor he produced any authority letter from the authorized signatory/account holder. That being so, the information was relating to third party, hence, the same was denied to the appellant.

Page 2 of 3

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given vide CPIO's letter dated 19.06.2018. The appellant did not produce any authority letter from the school supporting his claim that the same was required for the maintenance of the records in their school. Assuming, the appellant's request was genuine the respondent authority may not be overburdened to trace and procure documents in cases wherein the school authorities handled the records irresponsibly and lost the same. There appears to be no larger public interest warranting the disclosure of the information and in absence of due authorization produced by the appellant, information relating to school's account i.e. third party may not be disclosed to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 03.09.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH) 334/350, KHAZOOR ROAD, NEAR JOSHI HOSPITAL, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI - 110 005 (EARLIER CORPORATION BANK) THE F.A.A, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH), 334/350, KHAZOOR ROAD, NEAR JOSHI HOSPITAL, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI - 110 005 RAJEEV CHADHA B-98, GF, D.D.A COLONY, NARAINA VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 110 028 Page 3 of 3