CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002167/14706
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002167
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Anuj Kumar,
Flat No. 172, Sector -22,
Pocket -I, DDA SFS Flats,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
Respondent : Public Information Officer,
Vijaya Bank
Regional Office:-
Vijaya Building, 3rd Floor,
17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi -110001.
RTI application filed on : 08-03-2011
PIO replied on : 09-04-2011
First Appeal filed on : 22-04-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 04-07-2011
Second Appeal received on : 05-08-2011
Information sought: the appellant asked regarding saving A/c No. 119118 opened in the name of
Anuj Kumar on 21-08-2004, the information following as under:-
1. Attested copies of account opening documents and bank transactions with supporting papers.
2. Name, designation and address of the official officer, who has opened this account in your
bank.
3. Name, designation and address of the official, who has attested the signature of relevant person
for operating this account.
4. Name and address of the Manager Chief Manager of Vijaya Bank, Branch Samaipur, Delhi on
21.08.2004.
5. Whether a Saving A/c can be opened with your bank without personal presence of concerned
person in bank.
6. Whether bank transactions can be made without personal presence in the bank.
7. Whether PAN No. is required for opening the account and heavy cash transaction in your bank.
8. Whether any action has been taken on my complaint dated 10/02/2011, handed over to your
goodself personally, if so kindly provide the copy of that action taken documents.
The PIO Reply.
I have examined your application and furnish the required particulars as follows:
Our Samaypur, Delhi branch opened Saving A/c 119118 in the name of Anuj Kumar, S/o. Om Pal
Singh on 21.08.2004. while opening the account, the applicant submitted the Identity card issued by
the Election commission of India. The photograph affixed on the Account opening form and as on the
Identity card are the same. However, We observe that the photograph in the PAN card AFIPK926SD
submitted by you along with the RTI application dated 09.03.2011 is of a different person.
Further, the address mentioned in the SB A/c 119118 is U-24 C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 110 088 and
whereas the address mentioned in your application is Flat No.172, Sector-22, Pocket-1, DDA SFS
Flats, Dwarka, New Delhi. Thus the information/document sought by you pertains to a third party,
which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(e) & (j) of Right to Information Act 2005.
Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant is not satisfied with the PIO reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"I have carefully examined your appeal dated 07.06.2011 and the reply given by the PIO vide
letter No. ROD/PER/RTI/1482/2011 dated 09.04.2011 against your RTI application dated 09.03.2011.
On examination of the information and documents placed before me, I am of the view that PlO has
rightly replied to you the photograph affixed on the account opening form and the photograph
embossed on voter identity card issued by the Election Commission of India is of the same person.
However, the said photograph does not match with the photograph embossed on your PAN card.
Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the information sought by you is of third
party information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The appellant is not satisfied with the PIO reply & FAA order.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Anuj Kumar;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant states that some one has opened a fake bank account in his name at the address
U&V-24C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110 088. It appears that his Election ID has been used for this
purpose. Subsequently the Appellant has changed his address and in January 2011 the Police made
inquiries from him regarding this account. Since he had never opened this account he file a complaint
with the Bank on 10/02/2011 in which he had informed the Bank that an account appear to have been
fraudulently opened in his name by using his photographs and copy of Voter ID. Since he got no
response to this he file RTI application on 08/03/2011 asking for details of this account and how it was
opened as well as seeking information on the progress of this complaint dated 10/02/2011. The PIO
has not provided any information about the progress of this complaint and refused to provide the
information about the other queries on the ground that it is third party information. Since the Voter ID
and the address provided in the said account was of the Appellant where he was residing earlier this
cannot be claimed to be third party information. The claim for exemption of information does not
appear to be valid by the PIO. The Commission also directs the PIO to provide the information about
the progress of the complaint in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on the first seven queries of the
RTI application as per available records. As regards query-8 the PIO is directed to
provide the information on the progress of the complaint as directed above. The PIO is
directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 15 October 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
Page 2 of 3
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which
raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 21 October 2011 at 12.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to
showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons.
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
20 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(NS)
Page 3 of 3