Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/SM/C/2009/000832
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)
Dated: 4 August 2010
Name of the Complainant : Shri Jivanlal C. Shah
21, Anupama BOI Society,
B/H. Polytechnic,
Ahmedabad - 380 015.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of India,
Ahmedabad Zonal Office,
Ahmedabad Zone, Band of India Building,
Bhadra, Ahmedabad - 380 001.
The Complainant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Krishan Kumar, CPIO was present.
2. In our order dated 15 December 2009, we had directed the CPIO to
provide the desired information and also to explain the reasons for delay. In
response, the CPIO has sent his written comments. However, the Complainant
has also represented that the desired information was yet to be provided to him
to his satisfaction. To resolve these issues, we had fixed this case for hearing
through videoconferencing. Both the parties were present in the Ahmedabad
Studio of the NIC. The Respondent drew our attention to our order dated 15
June 2010 in the appeal case No. CIC/SM/C/2009/001346 &
CIC/SM//2010/000142 and submitted that in compliance of our directions, the
CPIO had already provided copies of a large number of records and documents
relating to the Complainant’s queries. However, the Complainant continued to
CIC/SM/C/2009/000832
protest that the information provided to him was not correct or adequate. To
bring to an end to this interminable dispute, we think that the CPIO should
arrange for the inspection of the relevant records by the Complainant.
Therefore, we direct the CPIO to assemble all the relevant records having a
bearing on the queries of the Complainant and then to invite the Complainant to
inspect those records. We direct this exercise must be completed within 15
working days from the receipt of this order. We further order that if the
Complainant chooses to get photocopies of some of the records after
inspection, he should be provided with such copies free of cost, excluding,
however, those records the copies of which have already been provided to him
in the past.
3. Now, in regard to the delay on the part of the CPIO in providing the
information, the CPIO has explained in some detail about the reasons in his
communication dated 5 January 2010. He has stated that the queries of Shri
Saha arose from two complaints made by him to the Banking Ombudsman and
the main plank of the RTIapplication was regarding the alleged nonfulfilment
of the various commitments made by the Bank. The CPIO has submitted that
the Bank had both a series of discussions and correspondences with Shri Saha
regarding the above complaints and the socalled commitments made before
the Banking Ombudsman.
4. Besides he has also submitted that within a month of receiving Shri
Saha’s RTIapplication and on the initiative of Shri Saha himself, he had been
invited for discussions on these issues on 27 February 2009 and they were
given to understand that Shri Saha was satisfied with the discussion. In this
CIC/SM/C/2009/000832
background, the CPIO has submitted that it was not felt necessary to reply to
him separately. Although it would have been desirable on the part of the CPIO
to respond to Shri Saha’s RTIapplication, in a formal manner with specific
information, in the background of his submissions and especially the fact that
Shri Saha has been seeking more or less similar information from the Bank
through various RTIapplications, we would accept the explanation of the CPIO
this time as reasonable and not impose any penalty on him. However, we
would like to make it clear that the RTIapplications must be dealt with seriously
and not mixed up with any other pending issues between the Public Authority
and the information seeker.
5. The final objective of the Right to Information (RTI) Act is to ensure that
the citizen gets the information he desires and within the prescribed time limit.
In this particular case, much time has been lost. We hope that by inspecting all
the relevant records, the Complainant would finally get all the replies that he
had been seeking.
6. The case is thus disposed off.
7. 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.
CIC/SM/C/2009/000832
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/C/2009/000832