Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000172 dated 04-03-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 24 November 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Girish Sanghvi
3, Krishna Building,
34, Khetwadi, 6th Lane,
Mumbai - 400 004.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, UCO Bank,
Zonal Office, Planning Development
Department, SPC - II, Mafatlal Centre,
2nd Floor, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 021.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Bhatia, CPIO,
(ii) Smt. Tulika
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had, in his application dated March 4, 2008, requested
the CPIO for a number of information regarding the policy followed by the
Bank in respect of the inoperative accounts and other related matters. The
CPIO replied on March 29, 2008 and provided only partial information.
Thereafter, the Appellant went before the Appellate Authority on May 15,
2008. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal in his order dated
August 13, 2008 in which he directed the CPIO to provide some additional
information following which, it seems, the CPIO sent him some further
information. However, still not satisfied, the Appellant has come before the
CIC in second appeal.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC whereas the Respondents were
present both in the Mumbai and Kolkata studios. We heard their
submissions. It was noted that the CPIO had not addressed all the queries in
his reply even after the direction of the Appellate Authority. In fact, against
CIC/SM/A/2009/000172
some of the queries, he had provided information limited to Mumbai region
only while the Appellant had sought information for the entire Bank. In view
of this, we direct the CPIO now to provide to the Appellant within 10
working days from the receipt of this order, the status regarding the number
of inoperative accounts and the total amount involved in those accounts as
at the end of the year 2007-08 and, similarly, about the total number of
safe-deposit vaults/lockers for which rent had not been paid for more than
one and two years as on March 31, 2008. This information should be given
for the entire Bank.
4. In this case, we have noted that the Appellate Authority had disposed
of the appeal filed before him rather very late. The Right to Information
(RTI) Act lays down a time limit for disposal of appeals by the first Appellate
Authority. The time limit must be scrupulously observed.
5. The case is, thus, 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/SM/A/2009/000172