Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001183 dated 22112008
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 18 May 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Brij Mohan Mishra
15, Sadar Bazar,
Jhansi.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bank of India,
Branch Sadar Bazar,
341/12, Sadar Bazar,
Jhansi, U.P.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Prabhakar, CPIO,
(ii) Shri Awadh Hussain, FAA
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 22 November
2008, requested the CPIO for various pieces of information related to the
premises of a certain branch of the respondent bank and its relocation. In his
reply dated 28 November 2008, the CPIO rejected the Appellant’s request on
the ground that it had been sought by an advocate representative and not by a
citizen and that the information asked for was not in public interest. Against this,
the Appellant preferred an appeal by the letter dated 1 December 2008. On not
receiving the Appellate Authority’s order in the stipulated time, the Appellant
CIC/SM/A/2009/001183
appealed to the State Information Commission of Uttar Pradesh, which lacking
the jurisdiction in the present case has forwarded the appeal to CIC.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Jhansi studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present both in
the Lucknow and the Jhansi studios. We heard their submissions. The
Appellant submitted that although he had sent his appeal by speed post, the
Appellate Authority did not pass any order on his appeal. Besides, he submitted
that the information desired by him was handed over to him during the hearing
itself today.
4. The Respondents submitted that all the information as desired by the
Appellant had finally been sent to him by speed post on 14 May 2010 and a
photocopy of that reply was also handed over to the Appellant today. As far as
the desired information is concerned, we noted that all the details have now
been provided and there is nothing more to be given.
5. It is quite clear that the initial response of the CPIO was totally wrong.
Merely because the Appellant had signed his request for information as an
advocate, the CPIO could not have decided not to disclose the information to
him. It is preposterous to hold that a citizen seeking information should not have
any other appellation or designation. In the process, the Appellant ended up
getting the information so late. For this delay, the CPIO is squarely responsible
and has to explain why penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act should not be imposed on him for refusing to provide the information
on completely irrelevant grounds. However, before imposing any penalty, we
would like to hear his explanation. Therefore, we direct the CPIO concerned to
CIC/SM/A/2009/001183
appear before us on 22 June 2010 at 02.30 PM in person and explain the
reasons for wrongfully denying the information to the Appellant.
6. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
7. 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
CIC/SM/A/2009/001183