File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/002266. Case: B.K. Ray Vs Central Public Information Officer, Allahabad Bank. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/002266 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: R.J. Patnaik, Chief Manager |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 20, 8 (1) (e) |
| Judgement Date | February 20, 2017 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner Information sought All the documents concerning loan account of Shri Raghunath Suar @ Supakar as required by his legal heirs/my clients including each and every page therein and rules & regulations of the loan & mortgage in cash credit account. The CPIO reply The CPIO denied the information under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act and also stated that the Appellant had not been able to furnish any documents/certificate in respect of the legal heirs of Late Shri Raghunath Suar @ Supakar. Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply. Order of the First Appellate Authority The FAA directed the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and decide accordingly. Grounds of the Second Appeal Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents. Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision 1. The Appellant stated that Shri Raghunath Suar has passed away and his legal heirs (wife, two sons and a married daughter) seek information regarding the loan taken by him. In response to our query, he submitted that the legal heirs have a legal heir certificate, issued by the competent authority. He further submitted that initially the information was denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. Subsequently, information running into forty pages was provided to him on 30.11.2015 pursuant to the order of the FAA. However, not all the documents sought by him have been covered in the information provided on 30.11.2015 and no cost was awarded against the CPIO for the initial denial of the information by him. 2. The Respondents stated that the available information has been provided. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. There is nothing on record to establish that the initial denial of information by the CPIO was wilful or out of a malafide intent. In this context, we note the following observations made by the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 3.12.2007 in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information... |
To continue reading
Request your trial