Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000908 & 1185
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 28 February 2011
Date of decision : 28 February 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal
S/o. Vipin Bihari Agarwal,
Near Jain Mandir, Bajriura,
Chirgaon, Distt - Jhansi.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bank of India,
Regional Office Jhansi,
372/18B, Gwalior Road,
Jhansi - 284 001.
CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
South Delhi Circle,
4th Floor, Rajendra Bhawan,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri A.K. Kulshreshta, Central Bank of
India was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard both these cases through video conferencing. The Appellant
was present in the Jhansi studio of the NIC. The Respondents representing the
Central Bank of India was also present in that studio. Nobody representing the
Punjab National Bank attended the hearing in spite of notice. We heard the
submissions of those present during the hearing.
3. In his application addressed to the CPIO of the Central Bank of India, the
Appellant had requested for a copy of the latest audit report of a particular
CIC/SM/A/2010/000908 & 1185
Branch of the Bank and had also wanted to know about the safety of the locker
and the chest of the Branch. In his application to the Punjab National Bank,
however, he had wanted to know about the loss incurred by the locker owners
of a particular Branch of the Bank in Delhi on account of the robbery committed
in that Branch. In the former case, the CPIO had informed him that a FIR had
been registered in the police station about the incident concerning the locker
and that the police was enquiring into the case and that the desired information
could not, therefore, be disclosed as it might adversely affect the investigation.
The Appellate Authority, however, provided some information regarding some
of his queries in his order. In the case relating to the Punjab National Bank, the
CPIO and Appellate Authority both denied the information by claiming that it
related to thirdparty customers for the Bank and could not be disclosed.
4. After carefully considering the facts of the case and the submissions
made before us, we think that the following information should be provided by
the respective CPIO:
i) the photocopy of the relevant documents showing the purchase and
installation of the chest and the locker in the particular Branch of the Central
Bank of India;
ii) the photocopy of the relevant guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India
laying down the technical parameters of the chest/locker to be installed by the
Bank;
iii) the photocopy of the guidelines of the Punjab National Bank based on which
compensation was worked out for the loss incurred by individual locker owners
of their Branch in Delhi where the robbery had taken place and the lockers
opened forcibly.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000908 & 1185
5. We direct the respective CPIO to provide the above information to the
Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.
6. Both the cases are, thus, disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/000908 & 1185