Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/C/2010/000910 & 1109
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 3 November 2011
Date of decision : 8 November 2011
Name of the Complainant : Shri Ram Shankar
C/o. Jwala Sharma, Tilaknagar Katira,
Opp. Pandey Hospital, Purab Gali, Aara,
Bhojpur, Bihar - 802 301.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Hotel Regal Complex, 3rd Floor,
East Ramna Maidan, Arrah - 802 301.
CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Management Audit & Review Division,
Rajendra Place, Rajendra Bhawan,
Head Office, New Delhi.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Ramanuj, Manager was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We had heard these cases through video/audio conferencing on 3
November 2011. The Complainant was present in the Bhojpur studio of the NIC
while the Respondent was present in the Arah studio. We had heard both their
submissions on that day.
3. In his applications dated 2 June and 18 August 2010, the Complainant
had sought a number of information in respect of a number of queries including
the details of the cheques above an amount of Rs 5 lac presented/encashed in
CIC/SM/C/2010/000910 & 1109
the Arrah Circle during 200910, tour details of the Circle Head during a
specified period, details about the celebration of the Foundation Day and some
other details regarding the deposit mobilisation in this Circle. When he did not
receive any response from the CPIO, he preferred an appeal on 20 September
2010. Later, he complained to the CIC that he did not receive any response
from either the CPIO or the Appellate Authority.
4. In our orders dated 25 October and 14 December 2010, we had
remanded the case to the Appellate Authority with a direction that he should
enquire into the allegations made by the Complainant and pass an appropriate
order. We had also directed him to obtain the explanation of the branch
manager/CPIO concerned for not providing the information in the first place. Till
date, we have received no response from the Appellate Authority.
5. This is a serious matter. The Respondent, however, submitted that the
desired information in response to the RTI applications had been sent in time.
But the Complainant categorically denied having received any such information.
Whatever information is materially available must be provided. Since we do not
have the copy of any reply or communication sent by the bank to the
complainant in response to his RTI request, we are not sure if all the available
information has indeed been disclosed. In any case, since the Complainant
claimed not to have received any response from the bank till now, the bank
should send the available information once again with a copy to the CIC.
Besides, a copy of the order of the Appellate Authority in compliance of the
orders of the CIC as stated above should also be sent both to the Complainant
and the CIC. We direct the CPIO to do so within 10 working days of receiving
this order. We also direct the CPIO to enclose the photocopy of the relevant
dispatch entry or any other proof showing that, indeed, a reply had been sent
CIC/SM/C/2010/000910 & 1109
against the RTI applications as claimed even though it might not have reached
the Complainant.
6. Needless to say, if our direction as above is not complied with, the
Complainant will be free to bring the matter to our notice.
7. Both the cases are, thus, disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/C/2010/000910 & 1109