File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000900. Case: A.S. Malhotra Vs Central Public Information Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000900 |
| Counsel | For Respondents: Ashok Chawla, Sr. Manager |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 19, 8, 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | May 29, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner 1. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 11.9.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on three points regarding a certificate dated 16.12.2008, issued by the bank to the G.N. Khalsa College. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 9.12.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 24.12.2013. 2. The Appellant stated that he is a retired Professor of the above college and had asked the college for some information regarding his Provident Fund for the period 1972 to 1979. The college, in turn, wrote to the Respondent bank, where the account of the college is maintained. In response, the bank issued a certificate dated 16.12.2008 to the college, stating that the above information had already been destroyed as per their head office instructions. In his RTI application dated 11.9.2013, he sought information in the context of the above certificate. The Respondents stated that the information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) and (d) on the ground that it pertained to an account maintained by the college with the bank and a certificate issued by them to the college and could not be disclosed to the Appellant. 3. The Appellant further submitted that he paid a fee of Rs. 10/- with his RTI application as per the Right to Information Rules. However, the Respondents asked him to pay a fee of Rs. 50/- vide their letter bearing the date 9.10.2013, which was dispatched to him only on 25.10.2013. He paid the additional amount of Rs. 40/- and even then the information was denied to him. The Respondents stated that the above fee of Rs. 50/- was demanded by them on the basis of the RTI Rules framed by the Haryana Government. The Appellant stated that the Respondents fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Information Commission and should have charged him the RTI fee of Rs. 10/-, prescribed by the Government of India. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and observe that the Respondents were wrong in... |
To continue reading
Request your trial