Central Information Commission
Shri S.N. Chaturvedi vs Punjab National Bank on 23 July, 2009
Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00886-SM dated 09.06.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 23 July 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri S.N. Chaturvedi, S/o Shri Saryu Prasad Chaube, Eastern Hal, Distt. Palamau, Jharkhand.
Name of the Public : CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Authority Daltoganj, Palamau, Jharkhand.
The Complainant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Nagender Sharma, was present.
2. The case in brief is that the Complainant had sent an application on 9 June 2008 to the CPIO/Branch Manager seeking a number of information about the cash credit account of M/s Shyam Kishore Prasad & Co. On not receiving any reply or information within the stipulated period, he has sent this complaint to the CIC.
3. The case was taken up for hearing through videoconferencing. Both the parties were present in the Daltonganj studio of the NIC. The Respondent claimed not to have received any application from the Complainant at all and submitted that he would be happy to provide the information if a copy of the application was provided to him. The Complainant, however, protested that since he had sent his application through speed post, there was no reason why it would not have been received. We see a lot of merit in the submissions of the Complainant and, therefore, would like this matter properly enquired into. We direct the CPIO concerned to enquire into the records of the Branch and find out if the said application had indeed been received and the demand draft for Rs. 10 sent CIC/PB/C/2008/00886-SM by the Complainant had been encashed by the Branch. If it is found that the application had been received and/or the DD had been encashed, the CPIO shall send his written explanation on why the information was not given within the stipulated period. If we do not receive a report including the written explanation, if any, within 15 working days from the receipt of this order, we will presume that the application for information had been received and no information was given and, therefore, will impose on the CPIO the maximum penalty as provided under section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. On our advice, the Complainant handed over a copy of the original application for information to the Respondent right away. We also advised the Complainant to send a Letter of Authority from the said M/s Shyam Kishore Prasad & Co authorising him to seek the information about the Company's account details. We direct the CPIO to provide to the Complainant the information sought within 10 working days from the date he submits such a letter of authority.
5. With the above directions, the complaint is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/PB/C/2008/00886-SM