CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001584/SG/15229
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001584/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. K Minakshisundaram
5/2, First street, K K Nagar,
Kolathur post, Chennai- 600099
Respondent : Mr. Anand Bade
Public Information Officer & AGM
Bank of India, Chennai zonal office
Star House, IInd floor, 30 (old 17)
Errabalu street , Chennai-600001
RTI application filed on : 11-02-2011
PIO replied on : 11-03-2011
First Appeal filed on : Not mentioned.
First Appellate Authority order of : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 19-05-2011
Q.No. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Date of contract. Account was opened on 19-05-1994.
2. Date of expiry. Account was closed on 31-10-2006
3. Whether any interest can accrue on a default Unable to reply.
account of a void contract.
4. Date of dematerialization came into effect Unable to reply
5. Date on which dematerialization was done Unable to reply.
6. When the customer was incapacitated from Yes.
selling the shares during the intervening period,
whether any interest can accrue.
7. Whether demand and acceptance on 25.06.2002 Unable to reply.
when the contract was void is regular.
8. Reason for the delay from 25.06.2002 to Unable to reply.
11.08.2006 in effecting another recovery.
9. Whether sale of shares on 11.08.2006 when the Request not considered under RTI.
contract was void is valid.
10. Excess amount lying with bank, if any
11. Statement of account from 19-05-1997 with
principal and interest component each
separately.
12. S.B account No. with balance on date.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The CPIO did not give complete and true information and CPIO did not provide information.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order..
Ground of the Second Appeal:
PIO had not given complete and true information.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. K Minakshisundaram on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Anand Bade, Public Information Officer & AGM on video conference from NIC-
Chennai Studio;
The PIO states that Appellant did not mentioned the contract regarding which he wanted
information. The Appellant has not revealed that he now wants information regarding the Account no. OD
687 which was his account with the Bank. The respondent states that with this he would be able to
identify the account and provide the information. The respondent states that he is not very clear what
information the Appellant is seeking. Since OD 687 is an over draft account of the Appellant the PIO is
directed to give an inspection of the account of OD 687 to the Appellant on 04 November 2011 from
11.00AM at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should
exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of inspection and the
PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on
04 November 2011 from 11.00AM onwards. The PIO will give attested photocopies of
records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
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 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (KH)