Lalit Kumar Pandey vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 25 August, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Lalit Kumar Pandey vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 25 August, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.07.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 21.03.2018 and first appeal dated 01.05.2018:-

(i) इलाहाबाद यु.पी. ामीण बक की शाखा िड ी काले ज म पो ेजुएशन कालेज के ब! सिमित के खातोंका संचालन30-01-2018 से पूव. महािवधालय की िनयमावली (सं िवधान) अनुसार िकया जा रहा था या नही ं ?

Page 1 of 4

(ii) यिद बक खातोंका सं चालन महािवधालयकी िनयमावली के अनुसार नही ंिकया जा रहा था तो दोषी अिधका5रयोंके िव6द 7ा काय.वाई की जा रही है , या भिव< म की जाएगी?

(iii) 29-01-2018 केप?ात महािवधालय के बक खातोंमलेन-दे न िकया गया है , या नही?ं

(iv) यिद बक खातोंसे 29-01-2018 के प?ात भी ले न-दे न िकया गया हैतो कुल धनरािश िकतनी हैएवंमहािवधालय केिकन-िकन खातोंसे ले न-दे न िकया गया है ?

(v) इलाहाबाद यू.पी. ामीण बक मजब िकसीसं Aथा का बक खाता खोलाजाता हैतो 7ा बक सं Aथाकी िनयमावली के अनुसारही बक खातोंका सं चालन करता है , या नही?ं

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 21.03.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Allahabad Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Banda, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 20.04.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 01.05.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 14.07.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 14.07.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide the requisite information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.04.2018 replied that the information sought by the appellant was denied under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Amit Ranjan Sharma, Chief Manager and CPIO Allahabad UP Gramin Bank, Banda, attended the hearing through the audio conference. 5.1. The respondent while endorsing their reply dated 20.04.2018 submitted that the information was relating to third party; and disclosure of the same would also affect commercial confidence of the respondent authority. Therefore, the same was not furnished to the appellant.

Page 2 of 4

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 CPIO's letter dated 20.04.2018. The appellant requested for information relating to third party information , disclosure of which was not warranted in larger public interest. In view of this, there appears to be no infirmity in the reply given by the CPIO. Further, in absence of the appellant despite notice and absence of any written submissions thereof, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. There appears to be 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: 24.08.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. ALLAHABAD U.P. GRAMIN BANK Regional Office, Dr Bhargawa ki Kothi, Chilla Road, BANDA (U.P.) The F.A.A, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, DM Colony, Civil Lines, Banda (UP) LALIT KUMAR PANDEY Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission