CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001157/SG/15050
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001157/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Chamdro Devi
Village - Sundarpur
P.O Palwal via Pipli
Kurukshetra
Haryana - 136131
Respondent : Central Public Information officer,
General Manager
Syndicate Bank, Head office
Manipal , Udipi District
Karnataka - 576104
RTI application filed on : 05/10/2010
PIO replied on : 21/12/2010
First Appeal filed on : 11/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : 31/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 02/04/2011
Information Sought:
Q.No Query Reply of PIO
1. Please provide information regarding Concerned PIO replied for point 1 & 2
change in nomination. that the information sought by
1. Current rule regarding change in appellant is on the question of law,
nomination. hence cannot be provided under RTI
2. Copy of ruling vide which the Act.
original/ previous nominee is not For query 3, 4, 5 & 6 PIO has replied
required to be called for at the that the information is not available
time of change in nomination. with him.
3. The depositor was 86 years old
deaf and dumb still his wife was
called who was natural nominee
at the time of change of
nomination, in the name of
grandson who even did not
reside with him.
4. Kindly provide the copy of
register / affidavit and other
relevant nomination was
changed.
5. Kindly provide the copy of
registrar and other documents in
which nomination was changed.
6. Kindly provide me the details
regarding the maturity if FD
which had matured on
31/07/2010 before the death of
the depositor. Why wasn't it
informed during his lifetime so
that the deceased could have
distributed the wealth according
to his own will.
2. Please provide whether any legal notice Concerned PIO replied that they had
has been received and application received the summons from the civil
challenging the change of nomination court, Kurukshtra alongwith the copy
and stopping of payment to change of suit for permanent injunction " Smt.
nominee. Chandro Devi V/S Syndiacte Bank,
Mohan Nagar Kurukshetra & Ankur
s/o Gobind.
3. Please provide whether is it sufficient to Concerned PIO that information
stop the payment & if not please supply sought is clarification which does not
copy prevalent to the subject. come under the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
PIO had not replied to the query.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
According to the order of FAA the PIO had replied to all the queries and had provided the requisite
information to the Appellant , hence the appeal has been dismissed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO was not satisfactory despite the FAA's order.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a
perusal of the papers it appears that the PIO should provide information on query 1 & 2 of the
Appellant. If this information is not in existence this should be stated. As regards query 4 & 5 the PIO
should either obtain the information from some other officer or state categorically that no such
information is available in the matter.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 30 October 2011.
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
05 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)