Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00593-SM dated 29.08.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 5 June 2009
Complainant : Shri Rajabhaya
Respondent : Allahabad Bank
The Complainant was represented by Shri Neeraj Kumar.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri L.M. Pandey, AGM
(ii) Shri O.P. Tiwari, Sr. Manager
This complaint has come to the CIC on transfer from the SIC, Lucknow
where it had been originally filed. The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had, in his application dated 29 August 2007,
requested the Branch Manager, Kartal for a number of information about the
Cash Credit Limits (CCL) in respect of nine self-help groups. When he did not
receive any reply or information even after the stipulated period, he sent an
appeal to the first Appellate Authority on 19 October 2007. On not receiving
any response from the first Appellate Authority also, he complained to the
SIC.
3. During the hearing, a representative of the Complainant and the
Respondent were present and made their submissions. On behalf of the
Complainant, it was submitted that the Complainant was unaware of this
matter coming up before the CIC as he was under the impression that it was
his second appeal in another matter which would be taken up today. The
second appeal filed by the Complainant against the orders of the first
Appellate Authority in another matter is yet to be registered in the CIC. The
present complaint has come to us on transfer and is being taken up for
hearing today. His second appeal shall be taken up as and when it is
registered.
4. The Complainant had wanted to know about the progress in the cases
of nine self-help groups which had applied to the Branch in June 2007. In a
CIC/PB/C/2008/00593-SM
belated reply dated 5 November 2007, the CPIO had informed the
Complainant that he had not specified in his application about the self-help
groups and in the absence of any specific reference, he was not in a position
to provide him with the information regarding the progress in the sanction
of loan in these cases. If the Complainant is still interested in the
information, he may indicate to the CPIO the names of those self-help
groups about whom he wanted the information. Once he gives those details,
the CPIO shall expeditiously and within the stipulated period provide the
desired information.
5. In this case, it is observed that there has been a considerable delay in
sending a reply and providing whatever information. This will attract the
penalty provisions of Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
However, before we decide on the penalty, we would like the CPIO to
explain to us in writing as to why penalty under that Section should not be
imposed on him for not providing the desired information within the
stipulated period. If we do not receive his explanation in time, we will
proceed to decide on the penalty ex- parte.
6. With the directions, the complaint 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/PB/C/2008/00593-SM