Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri. K Ramchandra Shenoy vs Syndicate Bank on 29 September, 2011

Central Information Commission
Shri. K Ramchandra Shenoy vs Syndicate Bank on 29 September, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office),
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                    Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000963/SG/14952
                                                            Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000963SG

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. K . Ramachandra Shenoy,
5-3-58 E, Radheshyam,
Chitpady,
Udupi-576101.

Respondent                           :          Mr. D. Ramachandra Shenoy,
                                                Public information Officer & DGM
                                                Organization and Method Division,
                                                Syndicate Bank,
                                                 Head office,
                                                 Manipal-576104.

RTI application filed on             :      26/11/2010
PIO replied                          :      21/12/2010
First appeal filed on                :      10/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order      :      02/02/2011
Second Appeal received on            :      15/03/2011

Information sought: -

The Appellant in his RTI Application has asked the PIO to furnish him with a copy of the circular with
regard to current systems and procedure of the Cash department and also duties and responsibilities of
the Cash department staff.

PIO’s Reply:

The information sought is exempted under section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005.

Grounds for First appeal:

Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO.

The First Appellant Authority’s Order:

The FAA directed the PIO to furnish the Appellant with the information within 15 days.
The PIO replied vide his letter 08.02.2011 that the information sought is exempted under section 8(1)

(d) of the RTI Act 2005.

Grounds For Second Appeal:

Incorrect and irrelevant information provided by the PIO and the FAA.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Mr. K . Ramachandra Shenoy on Video Conferencing from NIC Center Udupi
Respondent : Mr. D . Ramachandra Shenoy on Video Conferencing from NIC Center Udupi

Page 1 of 2
The PIO admits that he did not provide the information despite the order of the First Appellate
Authority.

The PIO claimed that he believed that the information was exempt under the RTI Act and hence need
not have been provided. All citizens and officers must abide by orders given in a process of law or
challenge them in an appropriate manner. However, flouting such orders cannot be considered to be
acceptable.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is hereby directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before
20th October 2011.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which
raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to
show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.

He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 21 st October 2011 at 10.30am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.

If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause
hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons.

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
29 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved

Page 2 of 2