Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5549
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, Commissioner
J C Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Canara Bank, Chandigarh – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/CANBK/A/2023/623022
RTI applications must be filed by a single person per Section 6(1); multiple signatories render appeals non-maintainable.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The RTI Act, 2005 governs requests for information, with Section 6(1) requiring applications to be made by a person in writing or electronic means in specified languages. The appellant sought details of a bank account including account holder name, cheque book issuance, authorised operators, and cheque recipients. The Commission found the RTI application defective due to multiple signatories including joint account holders and an advocate, violating procedural requirements. Second Paragraph: The key issue was whether the RTI application complied with Section 6(1), and subsequent appeals with Sections 19(1) and 19(3). The ratio decidendi holds that applications not filed by a single person as per Section 6(1) render appeals technically infirm and non-maintainable. Last Paragraph: The instant appeal is not maintainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of rti application, appeals, and hearing attendance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. rti filed by multiple persons causing technical defects. (Para 5) |
| 3. non-compliance with s.6(1) renders appeal non-maintainable. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
“Kindly supply the following information/documents under RTI Act 2005, with regard to A/C no.239*****276 maintained with your Bank by Gurmeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh, Guru Nanak Sweets, SCF 44, Phase 10, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) under the RTI Act, 2005: -
(i) Name of the Account Holder
(ii) To whom the Cheque Book has been issued?
(iii) Who is authorised person to operate the Account?
(iv) Who is operator of the above said Account?
(v) Please intimate the name of the person who have got issued the Cheque from your bank in his favour….” etc.
2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO vide letter dated 18.01.2023, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 13.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.05.2023.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Sandeep Kuamr, DM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The Commission remarked at the outset that the close scrutiny of the facts on record reveals that the RTI Application and First Appeal under reference were filed in the name of multiple citizens, two of these citizens signing as joint account holders and one signing as their advocate. Therefore, since the matter under reference suffered from technical infirmities, the hearing was concluded after informing the same to the parties.
6. The Commission in furtherance of the hearing proceedings observes that the instant RTI Application has not been filed as per the provision of Section 6(1) of the RTI Act which stipulates that:
“A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to …”
The above stated position renders the subsequent First & Second Appeal also as defective for not conforming to Section 19(1) & (3) of the RTI Act, respectively.
7. Having observed as above, the instant appeal is not maintainable.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
