Kawaljeet Singh vs Bank Of India on 26 December, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kawaljeet Singh vs Bank Of India on 26 December, 2019

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 10.01.2018 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 19.12.2017 are as under :

 To take necessary action against the respondent for denial of information

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the Complianant filed an application dated 19.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Zonal Office, Lucknow, seeking following information:

Page 1 of 4

The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.12.2017. The Complianant did not file first appeal. The Complianant has filed a Compliant dated 10.01.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The Complianant has filed the instant Compliant dated 10.01.2018 inter alia on the grounds that not satisfactory response/communication was received from the CPIO. The Complianant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information free of cost immediately under the RTI Act and recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO.

4. The CPIO repliedvide letter dated 29.12.2017 denied the information under section 8 (1) (a), (g), (j) of the RTI Act. The Complainant did not file first appeal.

5. The complainant and on behalf of the respondent Shri K S Rawat, Assistant General Manager, Bank of India, Lucknow, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The complainant submitted that information sought had completely been denied by the respondent under section 8 (1) (a), (g) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005. He Page 2 of 4 stated that he was an MSME entrepreneur and his credit petition was still pending although many ghost loan applicants had allegedly been given loans. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide point- wise information in public interest.

5.2. The respondent submitted that disclosure of information sought would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India and would endanger the life or physical safety of other persons therefore they had denied the information to the complainant under section 8 (1) (a), (g) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that this is not the case of non- reply, it is a case of consideration of RTI application and by application of relevant provisions of section 8 of RTI Act the respondent has claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (a), (g) and (j) of RTI Act. Perusal of records reveals, that it may not be inferred that information was denied with mala fide. The CPIO acts as a quasi- judicial body and no mala fide can be attributed if he rejects application by using his wisdom. In view of this, the complaint is unfounded. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

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

S/d (Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date:23.12.2019 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, STAR HOUSE, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW - 226 010 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, STAR HOUSE, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW - 226 010 KAWALJEET SINGH Po were d b y Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission