CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B-Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No.2518/ICPB/2008
F.No.PBC/08/229
July 28, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18
[Hearing on 16.7.2008 at 11.00 a.m.]
Appellant : Mr. Samal Singh
Public authority: Punjab National Bank
Chief Manager & CPIO
Zonal Manager & Appellate Authority
Present: For Respondents:
Mr. Gopal Krishna, Dy. Manager (Law)
For Appellant:
Mr. Rajvir Singh
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated 12.07.2007
addressed to the PIO, Punjab National Bank, Madhu Gadi Hathraz Branch requesting
certain information pertaining to recovery of tractor loan which was sanctioned by Punjab
National Bank, Madhu Gadi Hathraz Branch. Since he did not receive reply he has
preferred an appeal. The appellant has filed this complaint before the State Information
Commission on 26.10.2007, which was forwarded to Central Information Commission.
Comments were called for vide letter dated 1.5.2008 for which we have received reply
only on 25.5.2008 by which Branch Manager has forwarded the reply furnished by CPIO
of LHO dated 28.07.2008.
DECISION:
2. This case was taken up for hearing on 16.7.2008, which was attended by the
appellant’s son as well as DM (Law) from LHO, Agra. I have gone through the RTI
application as well as replies received in this connection. The application dated
12.7.2007 was replied on 28.07.2008. Therefore I direct the CPIO to show-cause why
penalty cannot be imposed on him for not adhering to the time-frame provided under the
RTI Act. While giving reply the CPIO is also expected to give particulars of first AA.
The appellant did not know the designated first AA therefore he has filed appeal before
the GM, HO for which he has not received any response either. Even if he had sent the
letter wrongly to the HO, it is expected of the HO to forward this application to the
1
designated AA, which has not been done in this case. Therefore, he has to give his
explanation for this.
3. Coming to the reply which was furnished on 25.5.2008 against para 3 there is an
indication that they have issued notices on 15.5.2000, 22.6.2001, 24.07.2001, 05.10.2001,
08.11.2001 & 09.11.2002 out of which the appellant during the hearing has stated he has
received only one notice dated 5.10.2001. In respect of para 3, there is a mention of
issuing 5/6 notices to the appellant regarding recovery of the tractor loan whereas he has
received only one notice. I, therefore, direct the CPIO to give instructions to the Branch
Manager to produce the recovery notices issued on those days to the appellant. This
should be done within 20 days from the date of receipt of this direction. In case if the
appellant wanted to inspect the concerned file he is at liberty to get in touch with Branch
Manager, Madhu Gadi Branch and fix up a convenient time to carry out the inspection.
During the hearing, the Deputy Manager (Law) has stated jurisdiction of this Branch has
been shifted to Aligarh. However, since he attended the hearing he has to do the needful
in respect of this particular application by issuing instruction to the Branch Manager.
While giving reply to the appellant, they should also provide the particulars of first AA in
case if the appellant is not satisfied he is at liberty to file appeal before the first AA.
Thereafter, he can approach the Commission, if need be.
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. The Chief Manager & CPIO, Punjab National Bank, 1-2, MG Road, Zonal Office,
Agra – 282 002.
2. The Zonal Manager & AA, Punjab National Bank, 1-2, MG Road, Zonal Office, Agra
– 282 002.
3. Mr. Samal Singh, R/o Flat No. A-1/13, Himalaya Apartment, Sec-2, Rohini, Delhi-
110085
2