The RTI application and Appeal were sent through speed post Respondent pleaded that they have not received them - Their submissions before the CIC were perfunctory - CIC cautioned to be careful of handling RTI application in due diligence of the RTI Act
O R D E R
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 02.11.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 29.07.2016 and first appeal dated 18.08.2017:-
(i) ᮧाथᱮ िवहारी लाल ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक ११.०६.२०१६ ई. शाखा ᮧबंधक इलहाबाद बᱹक शाखा राव᭗सᭅगंज, सानभᮤ के यहाँ ᮧाथᭅना पᮢ ᳰदया गया उᲦ ᮧाथᭅना पᮢ पर शाखा ᮧबंधक इलाहबाद बᱹक शाखा राव᭗सᭅगंज, सोनभᮤ ᳇ारा या कायाᭅवाही कᳱ गयी
| (ii) ᭠यायालय िजला उपभोᲦा संरᭃण फोरम ᳇ारा पᳯरवाद सं. १३/२०१५ िवहारी लाल वनाम शाखा ᮧबंधक इलाहाबाद बᱹक
(i) ᮧाथᱮ िवहारी लाल ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक ११.०६.२०१६ ई. शाखा ᮧबंधक इलहाबाद बᱹक शाखा राव᭗सᭅगंज, सानभᮤ के यहाँ ᮧाथᭅना पᮢ ᳰदया गया उᲦ ᮧाथᭅना पᮢ पर शाखा ᮧबंधक इलाहबाद बᱹक शाखा राव᭗सᭅगंज, सोनभᮤ ᳇ारा या कायाᭅवाही कᳱ गयी | (ii) ᭠यायालय िजला उपभोᲦा संरᭃण फोरम ᳇ारा पᳯरवाद सं. १३/२०१५ िवहारी लाल वनाम शाखा ᮧबंधक इलाहाबाद बᱹक
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.07.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Varanasi and CPIO-II: Allahabad Bank, Sonbhadra, U.P seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 18.08.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 02.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 02.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the information.
4. The CPIO as well as the FAA did not reply.
5. The appellant remained absent and respondent represented by Shri Avadesh Kumar Thakur, PIO, Allahabad Bank, Sonbhadra and Shri Jyoti Kumar, Manager (Law), Allahabad Bank, Varanasi attended the hearing through Video Conference.
5.1. The respondent inter alia submitted that they have not received the RTI application.
5.2. Perusal of the RTI application as well as 1st Appeal reveals that the appellant has sent the application as well as the 1st Appeal through speed post. The respondent has pleaded that they have not received the RTI application as well as 1st appeal. Their submissions before the Commission were perfunctory.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that ends of justice would be met if the respondent is directed to provide the information sought by the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. In view of the perfunctory submissions made by the respondent, the officers are cautioned to be careful of handling RTI application in due diligence of the RTI Act. A copy of the reply sent to the appellant may also be endorsed to the Commission. With these observations and directions the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Bihari Lal v. CPIO-I: Allahabad Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/ALDBK/A/2017/175297, Dated 04.07.2019