Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00351-SM dated 24.11.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 7 July 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri Amrit Bhal,
E-19, Janakpuri Society,
Ajanta Colony, Garh Road,
Meerut, U.P - 250 004.
Name of the Public : CPIO & General Manager, Bank of
Authority Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, C-
26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai - 440 051.
The Complainant was present along with Shri Vijender Singh.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Ms. Rekha B.M., Law Officer
(ii) Shri Ramaswami Iyer, DGM
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had sent an application to the CPIO on 24 November
2007 seeking a number of information regarding the action taken by the
Bank on certain communications sent by him and his father and regarding
the expenses incurred by the Bank on transfer of employees during several
years beginning from 1998 to 2006. The CPIO sent an e-mail to the
Complainant on 5 December 2007 advising him to remit the application fee
either in the form of a demand draft or postal order so that further action
could be taken on his request. He also advised him that he could deposit the
fee in cash in any nearest Branch and send the receipt proof to them. The
Complainant has come before the CIC alleging that the CPIO has deliberately
not provided the information to him for which the Complainant should be
compensated and that all the information should be provided to him.
CIC/PB/C/2008/00351-SM
3. During the hearing, both the sides were present and made their
submissions. The Complainant was exercised over the fact that the CPIO, on
the plea that the application fee deposited by him in one of the Branches of
the Bank in cash was never received by him, did not provide him the
information. The Respondent insisted that the Complainant never sent the
receipt by way of proof of depositing the application fee and, therefore, he
did not know if the fee had been deposited at all and, therefore, did not act
on his application. This is an unfortunate case in the sense that there is a lot
of hardening of attitudes on both the sides due to several protracted and
pending disputes between the Complainant’s father, a former employee of
the Bank and the Bank itself. The Rules regarding payment of application
fee prescribe three different modes, namely, cash, postal order and demand
draft. In this case, unfortunately, even though the Complainant deposited
the cash in one of the Branches of the Bank, he did not dispatch a copy of
the receipt to the CPIO by way of proof. Therefore, technically, the CPIO
took the stand that the application for information was not valid in the
absence of the application fee. The fact that the CPIO had sent two e-mails
to the Complainant advising him to deposit the application fee shows that
he wanted the technical requirement to be fulfilled before he would act on
the application. In view of the fact that the Complainant had not actually
sent the proof of depositing the application fee in the form of the receipt, it
may not be possible for us to take the CPIO to task for not providing the
information in time. However, we like to advise the CPIO to be more
proactive and non-technical in such cases in future and to deal with the
applications for information in the spirit of sharing rather than withholding
information on some ground or the other.
4. Now coming to the information sought, we find that in the written
comments sent to us, the Respondent has provided point wise reply on the
seven queries contained in the original application of the Complainant. We
do not find the replies very satisfactory or to the point. We, therefore,
direct the CPIO to send to the Complainant within 10 working days from the
receipt of this order, the following information:
CIC/PB/C/2008/00351-SM
i) a copy of the communication(s), if any, sent by the Bank to the
Reserve Bank of India(RBI) and others in response to the
Complainant’s representations to one GP Borah of the RBI and to the
President of India.
ii) a copy of the reply, if any, the Bank sent in response to the
Complainant’s complaint to the Prime Minister of India.
iii) a copy of the action taken, if any, on the representations the
Complainant’s mother had sent to the CMD regarding the transfer of
his father.
iv) a copy of the reply, if any sent by the Bank with reference to the
Complainant’s complaint regarding the educational loan.
v) a copy of the reply if any sent by the Bank in response to the
representation of the Complainant’s mother to the President of India.
5. The remaining information, namely the expenses incurred on the
transfer of employees in the Bank over a period of nine years and the
veracity of the threat given by two officers for the Bank to the Complainant,
his mother and father over phone, appears to be too vague and unclear for
the CPIO to provide any information.
6. The Complainant has prayed for payment of compensation of Rs 1
lakh for the losses incurred by him. Unfortunately, he has not been able to
justify how the conduct of the CPIO has resulted in any loss to him.
Therefore, we do not intend to pass any order on his request.
7. The complaint is thus disposed off.
8. 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/2008/00351-SM
Copy to:
1. Shri Amrit Bhal, E-19, Janakpuri Society, Ajanta Colony, Garh Road, Meerut,
U.P – 250 004.
2. CPIO & General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 440 051.
CIC/PB/C/2008/00351-SM