Information about a dormant Bank account - CIC: The second appeal filed by the appellant was time-barred & in absence of any application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal, after a lapse of almost two years, the same is not maintainable
5 Jul, 2024O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.10.2020 seeking information on the following points:
Ø “The action taken on the issue of new pass book as well as the transaction statement of a/c in “dormant status” are requested under right to information act, 2005 for which application.”
2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 28.12.2020. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.10.2022. Subsequently, the CPIO replied on 19.03.2024.
4. The appellant’s husband Shri P.V. Isaac and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajat Bhattacharya, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The appellant’s representative inter alia submitted that his wife’s account was in dormant state for almost 4 years and the bank was not co-operating with them to activate the account. Further, he argued that the respondent had not replied so far.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had not received the RTI application in 2020. On receipt of the hearing notice, they had informed the appellant vide letter dated 19.03.2024 that the relevant details such as name of Branch and account number, were not mentioned in the RTI application. Moreover, the appellant’s wife/account holder had to physically visit the Branch for activation of account.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the second appeal filed by the appellant was time-barred and in absence of any application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal, after a lapse of almost two years, the same is not maintainable. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: J Leela v. Union Bank of India, CIC/UBIND/A/2022/148384; Date of Decision: 01.04.2024