Appeal No. 14/IC(A)/2006 and F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/0002. Case: B.H. Veeresha, Brashtachara Nirmoolana Vedike Vs Deputy General Manager and Appellate Authority, Planning and Development Wing, Canara Bank. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No. 14/IC(A)/2006 and F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/0002 |
| Judges | M.M. Ansari, I.C. |
| Issue | Right to Information Act |
| Judgement Date | March 27, 2006 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
Decision: M.M. Ansari, I.C. Grounds of Appeal: 1. The appellant requested for information on expenditure incurred by the Bank for execution of interior work on their 1. Nomenclature / Particulars of work undertaken. 2. Total amount paid to the Contractor with Bill Number and Date. 3. Name & address of Contractor with their PAN Number. 4. Particulars of Tax Deducted at Source - both Income Tax & Service Tax. 2. The above information has been sought in a CD in electronic media. The appellant has alleged that the CPIO has supplied incomplete, misleading and incorrect information. The appellate authority while dismissing the appeal upheld the decision of the CPIO and contended that the information furnished by the CPIO is in accordance with the Act and as per the records maintained by them under the guidelines of the RBI. The information is to be provided in the form in which is exist with the Bank. 3. A detailed response received from the Bank indicate that appellant was provided with the particulars of expenditure incurred under the repairs and maintenance from the period 1998 to 2005. The Bank has supplied the Annual Reports for this period to the Commission also. The Bank has explained that the information provided to the appellant is not misleading, incomplete or false. This information is as per the published balance sheet of the Bank, which were duly audited and accepted by the various regulatory authorities. The Bank has mentioned that the appellant has sought non existent information for a period up to 30.9.2006. Prior to the coming into force the RTI Act, Banks have been maintaining records as per the RBI guidelines for a period of 8 years. Hence, it is not possible to provide the information for the period sought by the appellant, as it does not exist in the format asked for. The appellant was denied the details such as name and address of the contractors and their PAN Number, treating this information as personal, the disclosure of which has no relationship to public activity or interest and same would also cause unwarranted invasion of... |
To continue reading
Request your trial