Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Hemant Yadav vs Allahabad Bank on 5 November, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri Hemant Yadav vs Allahabad Bank on 5 November, 2009
                           Central Information Commission
                 Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2008/00048 dated 26-04-2008
                 Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)



                                                        Dated: 5 November 2009


Name of the Appellant              :   Shri Hemant Yadav
                                       Nagarpalika Khamariya,
                                       Distt - Sant Ravidas Nagar,
                                       Bhadohi, U.P.

Name of the Public Authority       :   CPIO, Allahabad Bank,
                                       Zonal Office, Mirzapur,
                                       Uttar Pradesh.



        The Appellant was present in person.

        On behalf of the Respondent, Shri. Agrawal was present.

2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated April 26,
2008, requested the CPIO for a number of information regarding the sale of
some property by the UP Finance Corporation following the orders of the
Debt Recovery Tribunal. The CPIO replied on May 10, 2008 and provided
detailed query- wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant
approached the first Appellate Authority on June 5, 2008. The Appellate
Authority disposed of the appeal in his order dated July 4, 2008 in which he
upheld the information provided by the CPIO. It is against this order that the
Appellant has come before the CIC in second appeal.

3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in our chamber whereas the Respondents were present both in the
Mirzapur and Kolkata studios of the NIC. We heard the submissions of both
the sides. We find the information provided by the CPIO against all the
queries to be quite adequate and complete. It appears that the Appellant
has a grievance against the Bank authorities for having served him with a
lawyer’s notice alleging contempt of court and complicating his purchase of
the said property from the UP Finance Corporation. Obviously, we cannot

CIC/SM/A/2008/00048
help him in resolving or redressing his grievance. Now that he has all the
information from the CPIO, he can approach the appropriate authority
seeking redress of his grievance. As far as this case is concerned, there is
nothing more to be done and, hence, it is disposed off.

4. 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/2008/00048