Mr.Varinder Thakur vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 20 May, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Varinder Thakur vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 20 May, 2010
                              Central Information Commission
                       File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001112 dated 25­02­2009
                  Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)

                                                                        Dated: 20 May 2010

Name of the Appellant                   :    Shri Varinder Thakur
                                             New Janakpuri,
                                             Ambala Cantt - 133 001.

Name of the Public Authority            :    CPIO, Oriental Bank of Commerce,
                                             Regional Office,
                                             B­XV­136, Jandu Tower,
                                             Miller Ganj, G T Road,

        The Appellant was present in person.

        On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­
        (i)      Shri M.K. Prasad, AGM (Law),
        (ii)     Shri Anil Sood, CM (Law),
        (iii)    Shri Y.V. Gupta, CPIO


2. In this case, the Appellant had, by the letter dated 25 February 2009, 

requested   the   CPIO   for   some   information   about   whether   some   particular 

cheques had been debited from the account of the account of a third party or 

not.   In   his   reply   dated   29   March   2009,   the   CPIO   rejected   the   Appellant’s 

application on the ground that the requested information was exempted from 

disclosure under the Section 8 (1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The 

CPIO’s response came much after the prescribed time limit (as mentioned in 

the RTI Act) and in the meanwhile, the Appellant preferred an appeal by the 

letter dated 29 March 2009. In his order dated 24 April 2009, the Appellate 

Authority   informed   the   Appellant  that   his   RTI   application   had   already  been 

replied by the CPIO. The Appellate Authority also observed that the information 

requested   was   available   to   the   bank   in   its   fiduciary   relationship   with   the 

customer and thus could not be provided to the Appellant as per the Sections 8 

(1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act. It is against this order that the Appellant has come 

to the CIC in a second appeal.    

3. We   heard   this   case   through   videoconferencing.   The   Appellant   was 

present in the Ambala studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present both in 

our chamber as well as in the Ludhiana studio. We heard their submissions. 

The Appellant submitted that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Dev) had 

issued three cheques in his favour and he had deposited those cheques in the 

SBI.   It   appears   the   SBI   had   sent   those   cheques   to   the   OBC   branch   for 

clearance   and   even   after   the   lapse   of   nearly   2   years   he   had   not   got   any 

intimation  about  the  fate   of  those  cheques.  He  submitted  that  the   SBI  had 

informed him that they had not heard anything from the OBC on this till now. 

The Respondents submitted that the Appellant had not provided any such detail 

in his application and that he only wanted to know if the account of one of their 

customers,   namely,   the   Additional   Deputy   Commissioner   (Dev)   had   been 

debited   against   the   three   cheques   he   had   listed   in   his   application.   In   the 

absence   of   any   other   details,   they   could   not   have   provided   the   desired 

information which was squarely about one of their customers.

4. After   carefully   examining   the   above   submissions,   we   advise   the 

Appellant to forward a copy of the reply he had received from the SBI in regard 

to these three cheques to the respective OBC branch and we direct the branch 

manager/PIO to provide the desired information regarding those three cheques 

within 10 days of receiving from the Appellant a copy of the reply of the SBI.

5. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra)
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)
Assistant Registrar


Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *