Loading...

Mr.Umesh Chandra Saxena vs Bank Of India on 22 November, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Umesh Chandra Saxena vs Bank Of India on 22 November, 2011
                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Club Building (Near Post Office)
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                                  Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002056/15830
                                                                          Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002056

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Umesh Chandra Saxena
Hospital Road
Surikh, Kannauj, (UP)

Respondent : Mr. J. K. Jindal
Public Information Officer & Regional Manager
Bank of India
Aryavart Gramin Bank
Sarai Meera, Kannauj-UP

RTI application filed on : 03/04/2010
PIO replied : 18/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 07/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 24/06/2011

Information Sought:

1. How many beneficiaries have been granted loan under Mukhya Mantri Rozgar Yojna and Pradhan
Mantri Rozgar Yojna in your office by Alipur Branch?

2. Whether the business of all the beneficiaries is satisfactorily going on and whether you are
satisfied with the current status of their account?

Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):

1. The information sought is in fiduciary relationship between the bank and the account holder.

2. The information sought has already been provided vide letter dated 11/05/2010

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Umesh Chandra Saxena;
Respondent : Mr. J. K. Jindal, PIO & Regional Manager on video conference from NIC-Lucknow Studio;

The PIO admits that information sought in query-1 would have to be disclosed since it is not
exempt. The PIO has sent this information to the Appellant but the Appellant refused to take this. The
Appellant states now he is willing to receive this information.
Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to again send the information to the Appellant before
30 November 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
22 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information