Shri Surendra Rout vs Bank Of India on 24 April, 2009

                          Central Information Commission
               Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/01026-SM dated 22.08.2007
                 Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)



                                                          Dated: 24 April 2009


Appellant                :    Shri Surendra Rout

Respondent               :    Bank of India

The Appellant was not present.

On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-

        (i)      Shri P.K. Sangamkar, DGM
        (ii)     Shri K.C. Satapathy, Sr. Manager (Law)



        The brief facts of the case are as under.

2. The Appellant had requested the branch manager of a particular

Branch of the Bank, in his application dated 22 August 2007, for a number of

information about the loan, which was sanctioned under the RLEGP Scheme.

Since he did not receive the reply in time, he had filed an appeal before the

first Appellate Authority, in the meanwhile, on 15 October 2007. The

Appellate Authority forwarded the appeal to the CPIO who, in turn, replied

to the Appellant on 19 November 2007 and provided the relevant

information. Not satisfied with the information so provided, the Appellant

has now filed a Second Appeal before the CIC.

3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present in spite of notice.

The Respondent was present and made his submissions. We carefully

CIC/PB/A/2008/01026-SM
examined the information sought and the information provided by the CPIO,

though somewhat belatedly. We find the information provided to be

adequate. However, we wanted the Respondent to explain why there was a

delay in replying/providing information to the Appellant. The Respondent

clarified that the original application for information was addressed not to

the CPIO concerned but to the Branch Manager of a local Branch which

never got transferred to the CPIO. The CPIO came to know about this

application only when the Appellate Authority forwarded the appeal

received by him and the CPIO, without any loss of time, responded on the

same day. We find that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the

CPIO and, therefore, we do not intend to consider imposing any penalty for

the delay.

4. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed off without any further

order or direction.

5. 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/2008/01026-SM