Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001955
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 25 October 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Chandar Kishor Rai
S/o. Late Shri Mahaveer Rai,
Vill - Dudhai, Post Baburahi,
Distt - Madhubani - 847 224.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Regional Office,
Darbhanga, Bihar.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Rasik Lall Gupta, Chief Manager was
present.
2. In our order dated 1 September 2010, we had directed the CPIO to
appear before us and explain the reasons for the delay on his part in informing
the Appellant that the desired information could not be disclosed. Today, the
current CPIO of the Circle Office of the Punjab National Bank appeared before
us and submitted that he was not the CPIO who had handled this case when it
was first received. Therefore, his appearance before us makes no sense. It is
surprising that the CPIO did not take care to produce either the individual who
was responsible for the delay or informed the office of the CIC about the fact
that he was not the person concerned.
3. Be that as it may, it is quite clear that the RTIapplication had been
addressed to the Branch on 7 May 2009. When the Appellant did not receive
any response, he filed an appeal on 28 July 2009. From the submissions made
by the CPIO, it appears that only after receiving the first appeal that the CPIO
approached the Branch concerned seeking the desired information. After
getting the said information, the CPIO decided not to disclose it although he did
CIC/SM/A/2009/001955
not cite any exemption provision in support of his decision. Needless to say,
the case been very badly handled at all levels in the Bank. We are not very
sure if the CPIO is aware of the relevant provisions of the RTIAct under which
such information, namely, the account details of the third party customer should
not be disclosed. On the face of the RTIapplication, it was quite clear that the
information had been sought about the account details of a Gram Panchayat,
obviously, a third party. The CPIO should have straightaway informed the
Appellant that his information was not to be disclosed being exempt under
Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and not have waited for
nearly two months to deny the same.
4. We would like to hear the explanation of the Branch Manager concerned
who was posted in the said Branch at the time the RTIapplication had been
filed. We direct the CPIO to forward a copy of this order to the Officers who
were the Branch Manager or the CPIO at the time, wherever posted, so that
they can appear before us on the next date of hearing to explain why he had
not acted on the RTIapplication either by supplying the information or
transferring it to the regular CPIO. The Branch Manager of the time as well as
the then CPIO should be present for the hearing which will be held through
videoconferencing. They should be present at the NIC District Centre, Room
No. 124, Ground Floor, Collectorate Building, Collectorate, Darbhanga (contact
person is Shri Ahmed Hussain Ansari, Scientist C and contact No. 06272
243360) on 26 November 2010 at 12.45 p.m.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SM/A/2009/001955
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/SM/A/2009/001955