ORDER

(30.12.2020)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 17.11.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through her RTI application dated 27.08.2018 and first appeal dated 12.10.2018:- (i) ािथनी के KCC खाता संा XXXXXXXXXX305 म िदनांक १३.०३.२०१६ को बकाया धनरािश िकतनी थी I (ii) उपरो( KCC खाता संा म िव*ीय वष २०१६-१७ के दौरान /रपेमे0 ािथनी 1ारा िकतना िकया गया है I (iii) फसल ऋण मोचन योजना अंतगत ािथनी उपरो( विणत खाते म िकतनी धनरािश के मोचन हेतु ा= है I (iv) ािथनी 1ारा फसल ऋण मोचन पोटल पर दज कराये गये िशकायत संा १७१७९०००४६५८ म OS-RP बGक ऑफ़ बडौदा गोसाईगंज शाखा 1ारा िकतना धनरािश भरा गया है I (v) उ( िशकायत म SERCH STATUS िकस अिधकारी 1ारा भरा गया सRंिधत अिधकारी का नाम पद एवं पTाचार का पता I

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 27.08.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Regional office, Sultanpur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.09.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.10.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)vide order dated 24.10.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 17.11.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 17.11.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO against point no. 5 of the RTI application was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information on point no. 5 of the RTI application.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.09.2018 furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant. The FAA vide order dated 24.10.2018 directed the CPIO to provide proper reply to the appellant on point no. 5 of the RTI application.

5. The respondent remained absent and the appellant attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant while presenting her case inter alia informed that the appellant’s loan was waived and the amount was received from the State Government as per the State Government policy. She further contended that her money was not returned which is attributable to the person who was handling the account at that particular point of time. She further submitted that the respondent had not furnished satisfactory reply to her RTI application.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observes that reply given by the respondent is evasive and incomplete. Moreover, the respondent has not appeared before the Commission despite notice and reasons for the same could not be ascertained. Further, the CPIO had defied the order of the FAA. It may not be out of place to mention that even after lapse of more than two years from the date of filing of this RTI application, complete information has not been furnished by the respondent. Hence, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue show cause notice to Shri Alok Singhal, the then CPIO and also the present CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Sultanpur, as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. The present CPIO is under obligation to service copy of this order as well as the show cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanation. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks. Besides, the Public authority is also directed to explain as to why compensation under section 19 (8)(b) of the RTI Act may not be allowed to the appellant for the loss caused to her. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide complete information to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of th