File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/000076. Case: Pankaj Trehan Vs Central Public Information Officer, Allahabad Bank. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/000076 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Ayush Kumar, Manager (Law) |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(e) |
| Judgement Date | January 05, 2017 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner Information sought 1. This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding the name of signing authorities, with designation in the managing committee, operating the account in the name of Northern Zone Physically Handicapped Railway Employees Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. The information was sought for the periods mentioned in the application. The CPIO reply The CPIO denied the information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply. Order of the First Appellate Authority no order passed. Grounds of the Second Appeal Information sought not provided. Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision The Appellant stated that he is a member of the Northern Zone Physically Handicapped Railway Employees Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. He alleged that the society has been collecting money from its members from the last twenty five years, but has issued no audit reports or information concerning the use of funds. He further submitted that the President of the Society sold his flat in 2003, but continued to hold the position of the President and operate the account of the society till 2010. Thereafter also, persons operating the account have been changed without proper authorization from the society. He stated that since the society is not functioning in a proper manner, it is an unlawful society. This being the case, a fiduciary relationship no longer exists between the society as the account holder and the bank. He further submitted that he has not sought information regarding account statements etc., but only the name of the signing authorities with designation, in the managing committee in respect of the account for the periods mentioned in his RTI application. 2. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and stated that the bank changes the authorised... |
To continue reading
Request your trial