CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000055/SG/14105
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000055/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Praful Chait,
Behind Allahabad Bank, Station Road,
Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh - 205001
Respondent : PIO & Assistant General Manager,
Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office
1/142, Babu Gulab Rai Marg,
Agra.
RTI application filed on : 22/03/2010
PIO replied on : 28/06/2010
First Appeal filed on : 07/05/2010
FAA's order on : 25/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 29/10/2010
Information Sought:
The appellant has had sought following information through his RTI application addressed to the
Allahabad Bank, Mainpuri Branch :
1. Statistical information about the fresh NPA in the branch during the last one year.
2. How much amount was treated as bad debts?
3. How much amount was recovered?
4. Whether position has improved or worsened?
Reply of the PIO:
1. Around 2 crores.
2. Nothing was treated as bad debts.
3. Around 32% was recovered.
4. The situation has worsened.
Grounds for the First Appeal
No information has been provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Information not provided since it is being gathered. However the FAA directed the PIO to provide the
information.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Praful Chait on video conference from NIC-Agra Studio;
Respondent : Absent;
The Appellant has received all the information as admitted by him. He is saying that he has
filed various RTI applications and has some problems with information received with respect to some
of the other RTI applications. However, in the RTI application being considered in this appeal the
information has been provided to the Appellant as admitted by him.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
It appears that the information has been provided late.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1) before 30 August, 2011.
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
17 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MG)