CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2907/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/2008/00253
October 16, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
[Hearing at Lucknow on 29.9.2008 at 10.30 a.m.]
Appellant: Mr. Kewal Prasad
Public authority: Allahabad Bank
Mr. Shyam Ji Mehrotra, GM & CPIO
Mr. Rajiva, GM & Appellate Authority
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. A.K. Sinha, Sr. Manager (Law)
Mr. C. Sahay, Chief Manager (Law)
Mr. Kewal Prasad-Appellant
FACTS
:
The appellant, President of Nagrik Kalyan Samity, Uttar Pradesh has sought
information under RTI Act by his letter dated 17.8.2007 addressed to CPIO, Allhabad
Bank, Zonal Office, Lucknow requesting information pertaining to third party’s loan
account of Sri Ladley, Mehboob and Maniram standing in their Nandwal branch. The
CPIO vide letter dated 25.8.2007 informed the appellant since he has requested this
information as President of a Samity he is not entitled for this information under section
3 of RTI Act since this application has not been filed by a citizen of India. Therefore, he
is not entitled for this information. However, he had requested him to file application
separately for which he will receive reply from the Bank. Aggrieved with the said
decision, the appellant filed appeal before the AA vide letter dated 3.9.2007 which was
disposed of by AA on 26.10.2007 by which he has agreed with the stand taken by the
CPIO in rejecting the application. This has resulted in filing of this appeal before the
Commission on 9.1.2008. Comments were called for from the Bank, which was
received from the General Manager-cum-AA on 3.5.2008.
DECISION:
2. This case came up for hearing on 29.9.2008, which was attended by the Senior
Manager(Law) and Chief Manager (Law). The appellant did not attend the hearing
initially since he was not present at the time of the hearing. However, hearing was
conducted and completed and at a later point of time the appellant was also granted
hearing on the same day. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies
received in this connection. Both the CPO and AA have interpreted section 3 very
technically while rejecting the application since the appellant has filed this application as
President of a particular Samity. In a true sense both the CPIO and AA may be right in
not entertaining this application. However, the Commission has taken a number of
decisions in respect of such issues whenever applications are received from bodies like
1
Unions, Associations, welfare bodies, companies etc. and the view taken by the
Commission is that these bodies should also be provided with the facility of filing
applications since the beneficial provisions of the RTI Act should not be lost sight in the
narrow interpretation of section 3 of the Act. I, therefore, direct the CPIO to entertain
such application and process such application as per the provisions of the Act.
3. However, as has been brought to the notice of the Commission by the AA that in
spite of the fact he has filed this application as President of the Samity he is requesting
information pertaining to third party account for which he has no entitlement as per
section 8(1)(j) of the Act. It has also been brought to the notice of the Commission the
concerned third parties have also applied for information independently with the Bank
and they were provided with the information. I, therefore, agree with the stand taken by
the CPIO and AA in not providing the information since he is requesting information
pertaining to third party. However, when he attended the hearing at a later part of the
day he has argued that he is entitled for this information since various applicants have
availed tractor loan from the Bank. He was advised in case if he has got any specific
reason based on which he is seeking this information he has to request for that
information and he has also to substantiate how he is entitled for this information. In
case if he files one such application his case will be considered by the CPIO as per the
provisions of the Act. As far as the issue regarding Registration Certificate of the
vehicle the appellant has been advised to file a fresh application which will be
considered within 15 days from the date of receipt of such application and he will be
provided with necessary clarification. In these lines, the appeal is disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. Shyam Ji Mehrotra, GM & CPIO, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, New
Building, 1st Floor, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001
2. Mr. Rajiva, GM & Appellate Authority, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, New
Building, 1st Floor, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001
3. Mr. Kewal Prasad, State President, Nagrik Kalian Samity, 225, Shekhupura
Colony, P.O. Vikas Nagar, Lucknow-226001
2