CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001632/SG/14825
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001632/SG/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kumar
Radha Oil Mills Balbehra
R/o Balbehra District
Patiala, Punjab
Respondent : Mr. Ujjaear Singh
Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager
Punjab and Sind Bank
Zonal Office, Rajbaha Road
Patiala, Punjab
RTI application filed on : 20/04/2010
PIO replied : 28/04/2010
First appeal filed on : 15/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Second Appeal received on : 26/10/2010
Information Sought:
Seeking certified copies of the affidavit No. 8376 of Amita Mittal w/o Sh. Pawan Kumar and Rajiv Garg
s/o Sh. Prem Sagar and affidavit no. 8377 dated 08/07/2004 in the name of Radha Oil Mill, given as
guarantor in the loan case of M/s Radha Oil Mill, Patiala Road, Balbehra, District Patiala given at the time
of sanctioning of C.C. Limit vide A/c no. 185 dated 09/07/2004 by Punjab and Sind Bank, N.K. Road
Branch, Patiala.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
Copy enclosed. But the account was closed long time back.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not ordered
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts Emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Pawan Kumar on video conference from NIC-Patiala Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Ujjaear Singh, Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager on video conference from
NIC-Patiala Studio;
The Appellant is seeking photocopies of certain stamp affidavits that he has given to the Bank at
one point in time. The PIO has stated that the stamp affidavits are not available with the Bank and hence
cannot be given. The PIO claims that when the Appellant’s account was closed the then bank manager has
stated that the affidavit was returned to the appellant. The appellant however states that this is not true and
claims that the affidavit has been fraudulently used in some other transactions. Effectively the Appellant
also confirms that the bank does not have a stamped affidavit. If the Bank does not have the stamped
affidavit the PIO cannot supply it to him.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided to the Appellant.
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
23 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision mention the complete decision number) (NB)