Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Saroj Kumar Niraj vs Bank Of Baroda on 5 March, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri Saroj Kumar Niraj vs Bank Of Baroda on 5 March, 2009
                         Central Information Commission
               Appeal No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00120-SM dated 11.09.2008
                 Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)

                                                                        Dated 05.03.2009
Complainant :         Shri Saroj Kumar Niraj

Respondent :          Bank of Baroda

The Appellant is not present, in spite of notice.

On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-

       (i)     Shri Dharamveer Kumar, Manager
       (ii)    Shri Rajiv Srivastava, Senior Manager


       The brief facts of the case are as under.


2. The Complainant had approached this Commission earlier with a similar
complaint/appeal which the Commission decided in its order dated 11 September 2008.
Appeal number 2793/ICP de/2008F number PBC/08/0051. The Commission had advised
the Appellant to get in touch with the Branch Manager on any working day to get these
documents released. It had also directed the CPIO to report to the Commission if he had
provided the information sought within the stipulated time frame.

3. During the hearing, the Complainant was not present in spite of notice. We heard
the submissions of the Respondent and carefully examined the complaint filed before us.
His main complaint is against the Bank for not returning his original certificates which he
had produced in the Bank for sanction of a loan in the past. The Respondent claimed that
they had written to the Complainant a number of times to approach the Branch Manager
concerned to get back his documents but he had not done so. Since the educational
certificates furnished by the Complainant are still in the possession of the concerned
branch, we direct the CPIO to ensure that the said documents are handed over to the
Complainant by special messenger within 15 working days from the receipt of this order
and compliance reported to the Commission. If the Complainant refuses to accept the
documents or is not found in his address, the CPIO should forward the documents
through registered post with acknowledgement due.

4. With regard to the non-response on the part of the CPIO, the Respondent reported
that the original application of the Complainant dated 29 October 2007 did not actually
contain any specific requests for information but was in the nature of a complaint. In spite
of that, he submitted, the Bank had replied to this letter on 20 November 2007 explaining
in detail about the status of his complaint.

5. With the above direction, the complain is disposed off.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(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