Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00722-SM dated 20.11.2006
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 24 June 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri Ravindra Nath Dubey,
S/o Shri Ram Kawal Dubey,
49, Vishvanath Colony, Pratap Nagar,
Chittaurgarh, Rajasthan.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Union Bank of India, Gorakhnath,
Gorakhpur
The Complainant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Vipin Chandra, Sr. Manager (Law) was
present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
The Complainant had requested the CPIO in his application dated 20
November 2006 for a number of information in regard to the fixed deposit
account of his deceased father. The CPIO did not provide any information and,
consequently, the Complainant approached the State Information Commission,
Lucknow, seeking direction to the CPIO for providing the information. The SIC
transferred the complaint to the CIC.
2. During the hearing, the Complainant was not present. We heard the
submissions of the Respondent. The Respondent also furnished written
comments on the complaint. The Respondent admitted that the CPIO had not
replied to the original application. However, he claimed that in response to the
petition filed by the Complainant before the District Consumer Forum and the
Banking Ombudsman in the past, the Branch had provided detailed reply to him
on this very matter. In the written comments, the CPIO also explained the
background in which the Branch had failed to act in time and transferred the
CIC/PB/C/2008/00722-SM
application to the CPIO since the Branch Manager was not the PIO in this case.
The CPIO has expressed his regret for the lapse on the part of the Branch
Manager.
3. We have observed on many occasions that in the Union Bank of India, the
RTI-applications preferred at the Branch level are not attended to promptly and
delays occur on many occasions. Since the delay in supply of information invites
penalty under Section 20 of the RTI-Act, we feel that the Public Authority
should make elaborate arrangement for delivery of information in time. We,
therefore, advise the Public Authority to decentralize the information delivery
mechanism sufficiently by appointing larger number of CPIOs so that
applications preferred at the local level by the citizens can be attended to right
there and not transferred to a distant location. This would also help the
citizens as they would not have to personally approach a CPIO located in a far
off place. In this particular case, in view of the explanation and regrets offered
by the CPIO, we do not intend to impose a penalty this time. The CPIO should,
however, be very careful in future.
4. Irrespective of whatever information has already been provided to the
Complainant in the other cases filed before other fora, we direct the CPIO to
send once again to the Complainant within 10 working days from the receipt of
this order the desired information including copies of relevant records in
response to his original RTI-application.
5. With the above direction, the complaint 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)
CIC/PB/C/2008/00722-SM
Assistant Registrar
CIC/PB/C/2008/00722-SM