CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000049/SG/14142
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000049/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar,
S/o Sri Parmeshwar Singh
In front of District School, Club Road,
Ramna, Muzzafarpur, Bihar-842002.
Respondent : Mr. Hussain
PIO & AGM
Allahabad Bank,
Mandalin Department ,
Muzzafarpur,Bihar-842002
RTI application filed on : 03/08/2010
PIO replied on : 08/09/2010
First Appeal filed on : 27/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : 03/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 03/12/2010
INFORMATION SOUGHT REPLY OF PIO
1. Where is the original loan application of Shri. Rakesh Kumar Copy of the letter addressed to the ASI
under PMRY 2007-2008? is enclosed.
2. On what basis and under which rules was the sanction of loan The loan was sanctioned by the then
accepted and sent to the District industry centre? Branch Manager and after detailed
investigation, sanction was cancelled.
3. As per PMRY guidelines, two photographs of applicant attested The photocopy of the rules is enclosed.
by the gazette officers is required, but you advised the investigating
official there is no such binding. If attestation of photograph is not
mandatory, under which rules was such advice given? Provide copies.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Aggrieved by the reply of the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Information has been provided for points 1 & 3. In case of the information sought at point 2, the
decision of the CPIO is upheld.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar on video conference from NIC-Muzaffarpur Studio;
Respondent : Mr. Hussain, PIO & AGM on video conference from NIC-Muzaffarpur Studio;
The appellant has sought a copy of his application in query-1. The PIO has stated that the
application which was filed in 2008 is not available anywhere on the records. The PIO is directed to
give the progress of the application of the Appellant giving dates and the various stages through it
went. The PIO will also provide attested copies of all the correspondence and file notings on this
subject. The appellant points out that he had not applied for any loan but somebody has forged his
signature and made an application for the loan which was sanctioned by the Bank. When the
Appellant’s father came to know about this he complained to the bank and then the loan was cancelled.
The Appellant is alleging that the original application form which had been fraudulently made in his
name is being shown to have been lost with malafide intent. The Commission is unable to draw any
specific conclusion on this and the matter is not within it jurisdiction.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the progress of the application of the Appellant giving
dates and the various stages through it went. The PIO will also provide attested copies
of all the correspondence and file notings on this subject. The PIO will provide this
infroamtion to the Appellant before 10 September 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)