Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000393 dated 15-04-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 10 September 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Jiwan Garg
F-2/194, Sector- 16,
Rohini,
Delhi- 110 089.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Regional Office,
Improvement Trust Complex,
SCO 146 FF, The Mall,
Patiala- 147 001.
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent the following were present:-
(i) Shri H.C.Bajaj, Central Public Information Officer,
(ii) Shri D.K.Gupta, Deputy Chief Manager,
(iii) Shri Jagdish Prasad, State Public Information Officer, Patiala.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated April 15,
2008, requested the CPIO for a number of information regarding the details
of the account numbers and locker numbers of four different family business
firms/organisations/concerns and for the certified copies of account
opening forms and partnership deeds. The CPIO replied on July 3, 2008 and
provided him with the certified copies of a number of documents and
promised to provide the remaining documents after the Branch found those
out. He also invited the Appellant to visit the Branch for inspecting the
records on a mutually convenient date. On August 29, 2008, the CPIO
forwarded copies of some more documents to the Appellant. Not satisfied
with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant moved the first Appellate
Authority on November 4, 2008. That authority disposed off the appeal in his
CIC/SM/A/2009/000393
order dated November 28, 2008 and stated that the records/documents
desired by the Appellant were not available with the relevant Branch. The
Appellant has now come before the CIC in second appeal.
3. The Appellant was not present during the hearing. He has sent a
communication requesting further adjournment of the case. We received his
request at the last minute and the Respondent had already reported.
Therefore, we did not think it proper to adjourn the case. We heard the
submissions of the Respondent and carefully perused the appeal memo and
all the documents enclosed there with. It is noted that the CPIO has
provided all the desired documents except the copies of the partnership
deed and identity proofs. The CPIO and the Appellate Authority have clearly
stated that the said documents are not available in the relevant Branch and
therefore cannot be provided to him. While the Bank cannot be compelled
to produce the records not available with them, they are bound to explain if
the said records were to be necessarily deposited by the account holders at
the time of opening of the said accounts and, if so, why and how such
records were not available. If the records have been weeded out, the CPIO
must also state so and provide a copy of the relevant regulation in respect
of retention schedule for records.
4. In view of the above, we direct the CPIO to write to the Appellant
once again within 15 working days from the receipt of this order explaining
if the desired records were to be necessarily deposited by the account
holders as per the prevailing rules and, in that case, the circumstances in
which these are not available. If these records had been deposited but
weeded out in terms of the retention schedule for records, the CPIO shall
clearly mention so and provide a copy of the retention schedule prevalent in
the Bank.
5. In this case, we also notice that the CPIO had replied to the Appellant
and provided whatever information much beyond the stipulated period.
Such delay on the part of the CPIO renders him liable for imposition of the
maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 20 of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. However, before imposing any penalty, we would like the CPIO to
CIC/SM/A/2009/000393
explain in writing the reasons for the delay. If we do not receive his
satisfactory written explanation in this regard within 15 working days from
the receipt of this order, we will proceed to decide on the penalty ex parte.
6. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.
7. 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/2009/000393