Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Lakhi Madhavdas Keswani vs Central Bank Of India on 14 September, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri Lakhi Madhavdas Keswani vs Central Bank Of India on 14 September, 2009
                         Central Information Commission
             Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/01223-SM dated 05-03-2008
               Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)



                                                   Dated: 14 September 2009


Name of the Appellant           :   Shri Lakhi Madhavdas Keswani
                                    BK No. 1064, R.No. 12 & 13,
                                    O.T. Section, Ulhas Nagar,
                                    Distt- Thane.

Name of the Public Authority    :   CPIO, Central Bank of India,
                                    Regional Office, Plot No. 383/384,
                                    Paradise Hights, First Floor,
                                    Station Road, Thane (W)-400 601.



      The Appellant was represented by Shri Chawala.

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

(i) Shri Joshi, Central Public Information Officer,

(ii) Shri P.C.Tiwari, First Appellate Authority.

2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated March 5,
2008, requested the CPIO for the details of the accounts of two Trusts in
which his deceased father was a Trustee. The CPIO replied on April 4, 2008
and informed him that the Branch did not have any record to show that his
father was a power of attorney holder or otherwise in the Trust account and
that, he being a third-party, the desired information could not be provided
to him. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant moved the Appellate
Authority on May 10, 2008. That Authority rejected the appeal by concurring
in the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant has come before the CIC in
second appeal against this order.

3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Thane studio of the NIC whereas the Respondents were
present both in the Thane and the Mumbai studios. We heard their
submissions. We find that the CPIO had claimed not to have any knowledge

CIC/PB/A/2008/01223-SM
about the status of his deceased father in these Trusts whereas the
Respondent submitted that as per their records and as per the records of
the Charity Commissioner, he was not a Trustee at all in the Trust which had
its account in their Branch. It would have been better if the CPIO had
categorically informed the Appellant as such when he first replied to him.

4. We, therefore, now direct the CPIO to inform the Appellant within 10
working days from the receipt of this order categorically stating the status
of his deceased father in the Trust which had its account in their Branch.

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

6. 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/A/2008/01223-SM