Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00526-SM dated 14.03.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 15.01.2009
Appellant: Shri Hazi Tajjmul Hussain
Respondent: Union Bank of India
The Appellant is not present.
On behalf of the respondents the following are present:-
(1) Shri Vipin Chandra, Senior Manager (Law), Union Bank of India
(2) Shri Baldev Prasad, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of
India, Mau, on 16th October, 2007 seeking a number of information in respect of
the Savings Bank Account of his deceased father. From the records enclosed with
the Appeal, it is not clear if he received any reply from the Branch/CPIO
concerned. It is also noted that he had not enclosed the requisite fee along with
the original application. It is also not clear if he had filed an Appeal before the
First Appellate Authority. In between, he seems to have filed the same request
with the State Information Commission at Lucknow. His communication to the
State Information Commission was forwarded to the Central Information
Commission and that is how the matter is now before us.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was absent in spite of notice. On behalf
of the Respondents, copies of a number of communications addressed to the
Appellant from time to time were furnished which are being kept in the file.
From a close perusal of those communications, it is noted that the CPIO of the
Bank had informed the Appellant in his letter dated 9.2.2008 that he had not
deposited the requisite fee while seeking information. Later, in his letter dated
23.2.2008, the CPIO communicated item-wise information to the Appellant. It is
not clear if the Appellant ever received this particular reply. On a further careful
examination of the reply given in the letter dated 23.2.2008, we find that the
information provided is adequate and to the point. We also find that the CPIO of
the Bank had responded to each letter or reminder sent by the Appellant in a
number of letters in which he explained the status of the Savings Bank Account of
his deceased father. Though it is not clear what the Appellant really wants to
know, we would direct the CPIO to send all the copies of his replies once again to
the Appellant within 5 working days from the receipt of this order. The
Appellant, if still not satisfied, will be free to prefer appeal before the First
Appellate Authority within the Bank.
4. With these directions this Appeal is disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar