CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/PB/C/2008/00285-SM dated 05.10.2007
Right to Information Act-2005- Under Section (19)
Dated 05.03.2009
Complainant : Shri Ram Lakhan Bharti
Respondent : Punjab National Bank
The Complainant is not present, in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Shri Jitendra Prasad Jha, Sr. Manager
(ii) Shri Sartaj Singh, Sr. Manager (Law)
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had submitted an application before the Branch Manager of the
particular branch of the Bank on 5 October 2007 seeking a number of information in respect of
the Kisan Credit Card Scheme. Since he had not deposited the requisite fees along with his
application, the Branch Manager informed accordingly. Thereafter, the Complainant deposited the
fees in the branch. After this, the Branch Manager in his reply dated 20 June 2007 informed the
Complainant that he was not authorised to provide the information sought as he was not the
CPIO. Now the Complainant has approached us for relief.
3. During the hearing, the Complainant was not present in spite of notice. The Respondent
submitted that the Branch Manager of the local branch, not being the CPIO as designated by the
Public Authority, had not provided any information to the Complainant during the stipulated
period. While we appreciate that the Branch Manager was not the CPIO, his conduct in dealing
with the request for information appears rather strange. Since he was not the CPIO, instead of
asking the Complainant to deposit the application fees when he first wrote to him, he should have
asked him to prefer his application before the CPIO concerned. Instead, he merely asked him to
deposit the fees only to inform him later that he was not authorised to give any information. The
Branch Manager deserves to be pulled up for this conduct. We direct the CPIO to ensure that, in
future, the correct designation of the CPIO should be prominently displayed in every branch of the
Bank so that the members of the general public know where to approach for information. We also
direct the CPIO to advise all the Branch Managers that, in case, any application for information is
received at their end, they should forward all such applications to their respective CPIOs and not
dispose it off at their own level by simply refusing the information.
4. The Respondent reported that, in the meanwhile, the CPIO had already provided the
information sought in a letter dated 2 July 2008.
5. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(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