Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/SM/C/2009/000809
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)
Dated: 25 October 2010
Name of the Complainant : Shri Ajit Kumar Jena
Badashai, Narendrapur,
Bhanjabihar, Ganjam,
Orissa.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Andhra Bank,
Legal Department, Zonal Office,
Berhampur.
The Complainant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri R. Appadu, Deputy General Manager,
(ii) Shri V. Sethu Madhava Rao, Senior Manager (Law)
2. The President’s Secretariat had forwarded a complaint to us in which the
Complainant had addressed a representation to the CIC demanding action
against the CPIO of the Andhra bank under various sections of the Indian Penal
Code. In this connection, it is to be noted that, earlier we had passed an order
on 15 December 2009 on a complaint from this very Complainant and had
directed the CPIO of the bank not only to provide the desired information to him
within a certain time period but also to explain why penalty should not be
imposed on him for not providing the information in time. In response to our
direction, the CPIO had sent a detailed written explanation dated 12 January
2010 followed by another dated 23 October 2010. On our express direction, the
CPIO presented himself in person today to explain the action taken by the bank
in this case.
3. The CPIO explained that the RTI application dated 30 March 2009 had
CIC/SM/C/2009/000809
been promptly attended to by the then CPIO who wrote to the Complainant on
28 April 2009 and informed him that the desired information had already been
provided to him by two previous letters, namely, of 17 November 2008 and 22
January 2009. Besides, he also submitted that following our order dated 15
December 2009, the CPIO had written to the Complainant once again on 31
December 2009 and provided the desired information. Thus, as per the CPIO,
the desired information had been provided twice over and the complaint that the
bank did not provide the information was totally unfounded.
4. It is clear that the Complainant has mixed up his grievance against the
bank with his request for information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In
a series of appeals/complaints to the CIC including the present one, not only
the Complainant but also some others have been raising this very same matter
again and again. The CPIO of the bank has clearly provided him with what had
transpired when the senior manager of the branch had met the Complainant. As
the CPIO explained during the hearing, there was no more records in this
regard to be disclosed or shared. After carefully considering the facts of the
case and the correspondence shown to us by the CPIO, we are fully satisfied
that all the information required to be given in this case have already been
given and there is absolutely no merit in the present complaint. It is nothing
short of a vexatious complaint and deserves to be filed.
5. We dispose of the complaint accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SM/C/2009/000809
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/C/2009/000809