File No. CIC/VS/C/2013/000507/SH. Case: Shri Kundan Shrawan Humane Vs Central Public Information Officer, Dena Bank. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File No. CIC/VS/C/2013/000507/SH |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19(3) |
| Judgement Date | May 20, 2014 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
Decision:
1. Though registered as a complaint, we are treating this matter as an appeal, because in his communication dated 13.9.2013 to the Commission, the Appellant has clearly described it as "Second appeal under section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
2. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 7.6.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on five points regarding disciplinary action/punishment awarded to some third party employees of the bank. The Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 24.7.2013, stating that he had received no reply from the CPIO. In his order dated 28.8.2013, the FAA stated that the CPIO had informed him that the application dated 7.6.2013 had not been received by him.
The FAA further stated that a copy of the above application, sent by the Appellant with his appeal, was being forwarded to the CPIO for necessary action within twenty days of the receipt of the FAA's order. The CPIO responded to all the five points of the RTI application on 6.9.2013. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 13.9.2013.
3. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant submitted that the CPIO had provided incorrect and false information to the FAA by stating that he had not received the RTI application dated 7.6.2013. The Respondents submitted that in his appeal to the Commission, the Appellant had stated that he had filed the application online by sending a mail on 7.6.2013. However, no such application was received by the CPIO. They further submitted that in case the Appellant had indeed filed an application on 7.6.2013, he would have record of the RTI application fee having been paid in respect of this application. The Appellant submitted that along with his appeal to the Commission, he had forwarded photocopy of a receipt of Rs. 10/- from the bank regarding payment of fee in respect of this application. On perusal of the above photocopy, we note that the amount of Rs. 10/- was paid by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial