Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri.Suresh Sood vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 24 August, 2011

Central Information Commission
Shri.Suresh Sood vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 24 August, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                      Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001294/SG/14232
                                                             Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001294/SG

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                             : Mr. Suresh Sood
                                        H No.-129
                                        Siv Vihar Ram Nagar
                                        Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh

Respondent                            : Mr. Niyogi
                                        PIO & DGM
                                        UCO Bank Zonal Office
                                        Shyam Nagar
                                        Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh

RTI application filed on              :       05/03/2010
PIO replied on                        :       18/05/2010
First Appeal filed on                 :       25/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order on    :       not mentioned
Second Appeal received on             :       17/09/2010

       INFORMATION SOUGHT                                              REPLY OF PIO
   1) Please provide me the certified copies of Voucher for The information sought by the Appellant stands
       the reimbursement of conveyance/ Petrol expenses         in fiduciary capacity under Employer-
       which is a Proforma of log book, and was submitted       Employee relationship disclosure of which does
       along with the petrol bills for claiming reimbursement   not serve any public interest at large and as
       of petrol expenses for the period from April 2009 to     such, is exempted from disclosure under Sec.
       February 2010 by Smt Sneh Sharma.                        8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information provided.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO is directed to furnish the information to the Appellant.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory and incomplete.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Suresh Sood on video conference from NIC-Kangra Studio;
Respondent : Mr. Niyogi, PIO & DGM on video conference from NIC-Kangra Studio;

The PIO states that the FAA has given a decision not upholding the PIO’s contention and
therefore the information has been provided to the Appellant. The Appellant states that there is a
proforma in which this information has to be maintained and this has not been provided to him. The
Commission directs the PIO to provide an attested photocopy of the proforma in which the Appellant
claims the information to be kept. However, if the information has not been maintained in the
proforma referred to by the Appellant this should be stated.
Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 15 September 2011.

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)