Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/PB/A/2008/001209-SM
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 9 April 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Sundaram T V
Flat No. 106, Palash,
Gawand Baug, Pokharan Road No. 2,
Thane (W) - 400 610.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bank of India,
Central Office, Chandermukhi,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Hemant Sharma, CPIO was present.
2. In our order dated 14 September 2009, we had directed the CPIO to
provide to the Appellant query-wise information against all his queries and
also to explain in writing why penalty should not be imposed on him for not
providing the information to the Appellant within the stipulated period. In
this connection, a hearing had been fixed today through videoconferencing.
The Appellant was present in the Thane studio of the NIC while the
Respondents were present in the Mumbai studio. In the meanwhile, the CPIO
had sent a communication to the Appellant on 15 October 2009 in
compliance of our order and had provided query-wise information against all
his queries. Besides, the CPIO had also sent his written explanation on the
delay.
3. The Appellant has both in writing and through oral submissions
referred to a number of discrepancies in the final information provided by
the CPIO. We think that the best way to resolve his doubts is to show him
the entire file regarding the PF dues. Therefore, we now direct the CPIO to
show the Appellant the entire file regarding this on a mutually convenient
date within 15 working days from the receipt of this order and to provide
him copies of any of the documents of the said file if he wants it.
4. As far as the delay in providing the information is concerned, the
CPIO has explained that the then CPIO had, instead of providing information
CIC/PB/A/2008/001209-SM
as requested, chose to settle the Appellant’s grievance by getting him the
payment of the interest on the delayed period instead. He submitted that it
was never the intention of the CPIO not to provide the information but, in
his enthusiasm, he thought it was more important to settle the grievance of
the Appellant rather than to provide him with the information. After
carefully examining the facts on record and keeping both the written and
the oral submissions of the CPIO in mind, we are of the opinion that
probably the CPIO had reasonable cause for the delay and had mistaken a
request for information as a grievance to be redressed. We strongly warn
him to be careful in future in dealing with RTI applications and provide the
information expeditiously within the stipulated period without fail.
5. With the above directions, the matter is disposed off.
6. 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/A/2008/001209-SM