Central Information Commission
No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00725-SM dated 11.8.2006
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 15.05.2009
Appellant : Shri Lakum Ramesh Bhai
Respondent : Dena Bank
The Appellant is not present, in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Devendra Singh.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had, in his application dated 11 August 2006, requested
the CPIO for a number of information in respect of the term loan sanctioned to
him as well as to another borrower. Even though he had claimed that he was
below poverty line (BPL) cardholder and had annexed a copy of his card, the
CPIO concerned asked him in his reply dated 25 August 2006 to deposit the
application fee. The Appellant wrote to the next higher authority on 7 October
2006 and that authority also advised him to deposit the application fee so that
his request for information could be processed. The Appellant, thereafter,
rather wrongly, approached the SIC, Gujarat whereas in this matter the second
appeal would actually lie with the CIC. Later, the Appellant sent his second
appeal to the CIC.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present in spite of notice. The
Respondent was present and made his submissions. At the outset, he admitted
that there was an oversight on the part of the CPIO and his next higher
authority in insisting on payment of application fee whereas no such fee was
payable as the applicant was a BPL cardholder. It appears that the CPIO was
unaware of the rules in this regard and kept insisting for the application fee
and did not provide information within the stipulated period. Now that the
No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00725-SM
Respondent has admitted that it was a mistake and that there was no malafide
on the part of the CPIO in asking for the application fee, we accept this
explanation and do not intend to impose any penalty on the CPIO. However, we
would like to advise him that he should go through the rules carefully and
implement the Right to Information (RTI) Act in the spirit in which it has been
enacted.
4. The Respondent submitted that the information sought included the
account details of a third party borrower which could not be disclosed as
exempt under Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He agreed
to provide the remaining information to the Appellant. We, therefore, direct
the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within five working days from receipt of
this order all the information sought except the account details of the third
party borrower.
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
No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00725-SM