CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000640/SG/14718
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000640/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Yagya Narayan Tiwari
Vill and Post- Kadipur, Khurd,
Khadipur, Sultanpur, UP.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Khadipur Branch,
Central Bank of India,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg,
Fort, Mumbai.
RTI application filed on : 11/11/2010
PIO replied on : 14/12/2010
First Appeal filed on : 11/01/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : 24/12/2010
Second Appeal received on : 24/01/2011
Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Provide information regarding daily proceedings Complainant's letter dated 26.06.2010 was
like on which all dates the prayer letter reached who received on 12.07.2010 and was immediately sent
all employees, stayed with the respective employees to the Central Bank of India on 14.07.2010, for
for what duration. Also, inform about the solving the matter and informing the
proceedings. Complainant.
2. Provide a report on the reformation process The information asked for by the Complainant is
regarding the disposal episode adopted by the not available with this Department.
Finance Ministry and Governor's Office, mentioning
the deadlines for the disposal.
3. Provide a certified copy of the decision taken by The information asked for by the Complainant is
the Governor's Office in the final episode. not available with this Department.
4. Provide a certified copy of the Ministry of The information asked for by the Complainant is
Finance and the Governor's Office within the time not available with this Department.
limit set by the process and not take
action, the action taken against the officer.
5. Provide a certified copy of the reasons if for some The information asked for by the Complainant is
reason work has not been possible till the not available with this Department.
deadline day.
Ground for the First Appeal:
The reply of the CPIO to the Complainant was found to be unsatisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The appeal was dismissed.
Ground for the Second Appeal:
The reply of the CPIO to the Complainant was found to be unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Yagya Narayan Tiwari on video conference from NIC-Sultanpur Studio;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant had sought a loan waiver for a farmer’s loan as per the policy of the
Government. The appellant alleges that the loan waiver was not given to him and has therefore
represented to the Bank by his letter of 26/06/2010. He wanted the information about the complete
progress of this letter which has not been given to him. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the
information as to how the Appellant’s representation of 26/06/2010 was dealt with in the following
format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action Date on which
Representation The officer receiving it. taken forwarded to
dated 26/06/2010 Next officer/office.
received*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the representation.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 10 October 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
21 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)DIS