Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/01245-SM dated 26-12-2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 8 September 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Brajesh Kumar
S/o Shri Bisheswar Nath Choubey
Vill- Majhauli, P.O. Bihiya,
Distt- Bhojpur, Bihar-802 152.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of India,
1st Floor, Chanakya Tower,
BCP Marg, Patna, Bihar.
The Appellant was represented by Shri Varun Kumar.
On behalf of the Respondent the following were present
(i) Shri Partho Vangovas,
(ii) Shri Jairaj, Law Officer,
(iii) Shri S.K.Bose, Manager.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated December 26,
2007, requested the CPIO to let him know as to why he had not been told at
the beginning that no education loan would be sanctioned to him since his
father was a defaulter and for a copy of the relevant RBI guidelines on this.
It seems the CPIO replied to him on January 31, 2008 stating that the Branch
had already advised him that his loan application was defective and that he
should resubmit the application after correcting the defects. But, the
Appellant seems not to have received it. He sent an appeal to the first
Appellate Authority on March 18, 2008. The Appellate Authority wrote on
April 22, 2008 and reiterated what the CPIO had said in his reply and also
encloses a copy of that letter. The Appellant has now come before the CIC
in second appeal.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. A representative of
the Appellant was present in our chamber whereas the Respondent was
present in the Patna studio of the NIC. We heard their submissions. It is
CIC/PB/A/2008/01245-SM
unfortunate that the Appellant did not receive the reply of the CPIO when
he sent it but received it only when the Appellate Authority enclosed a copy
with his order. Had he received it in the first place, probably, there would
have been no need for him to go through the successive appeals. In any
case, it appears that the Appellant has a grievance that the then Branch
Manager had not considered his application for loan even after he revised it.
Be that as it may, in order to clear any doubt in his mind about the claim of
the CPIO about replying in time, we direct the CPIO to send him within 10
working days from the receipt of this letter, a certified copy of the relevant
page of the dispatch register in which the dispatch of the letter dated
January 31, 2008 had been recorded.
4. The Respondent announced during the hearing that if the Appellant
would make a fresh application in the proper form for educational loan, the
Bank would consider it expeditiously.
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
CIC/PB/A/2008/01245-SM