Central Information Commission
Yagyasaini Kakkar vs Central Bank on 19 November, 2018
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/CBIND/A/2017/159538
Yagyasaini Kakkar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Central Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Regional Office, Nagpur
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.03.2017 FA : 22.04.2017 SA : 25.08.2017
CPIO : 17.04.2017 and
FAO : 15.05.2017 Hearing : 16.11.2018
14.06.2017
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Katol Road, Friends Colony, Nagpur, Maharashtra seeking information on three points pertaining to a joint account no. 32XXXXX15 in the name of her deceased father Shri P.H. Kakkar alias P.L. Prem and the appellant, including, inter-alia (i) a copy of details of transactions entered in the said account from the Page 1 of 4 date of opening till date, and (ii) a copy of the account opening form along with all documents submitted at the time of opening the said account.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that despite the FAA's order the CPIO denied the information stating that the appellant's signature is different from the signature in their records. The appellant also stated that the reply dated 17.04.2017 was dispatched by the CPIO with a delay and the same was received by her on 11.05.2017. She requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for to her and take appropriate legal action against the CPIO for the delay in furnishing the reply.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar was present in person and the respondent Shri A.K. Atluri, Deputy Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Nagpur attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that after filing the instant second appeal with the Commission she has received the information sought for on 24.10.2017 from the CPIO. However, the CPIO did not provide the reply to her within the stipulated time. Rather, in response to her RTI application dated 18.03.2017, an antedated reply was sent to her, which was received by her only on 11.05.2017.
5. The respondent submitted that in response to the RTI application a reply was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 17.04.2017. The respondent admitted that inadvertently, the reply was dispatched late. He tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same. Further, in compliance with the FAA's order dated 15.05.2017 the appellant vide letter Page 2 of 4 dated 14.06.2017 was requested to visit the office or send a valid photo identity card duly attested by a Gazetted Officer as her signature did not match with the signature of the account holder as available on record. Subsequently, the information sought for was provided to the appellant on 24.10.2017.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information sought for has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. However, as per the appellant, the initial reply dated 17.04.2017 was received by her only on 11.05.2017. It appears that perhaps, the letter dated 17.04.2017 was dispatched, due to carelessness, by the respondent with a delay and hence, the same was received by the appellant on 11.05.2017. The Commission further observes that since the information sought was provided to the appellant, it cannot be said that the reply was deliberately delayed by the respondent. Hence, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO. Nonetheless, the Commission takes a very serious view of the above-mentioned lapse. The public information officers are entrusted with the responsibility of providing information to the citizen under the RTI Act. It is expected that the CPIO on receipt of a request shall as expeditiously as possible provide the information sought for by the applicant. In this case, the CPIO did not discharge his responsibility properly. The Commission, therefore, counsels the CPIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and that the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 48. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 19.11.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Nagpur, Oriental Building, LIC Square, Kamptee Road, Nagpur-440 001.
Maharashtra.
2. Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, Page 4 of 4