ORDER

(01.08.2022)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.10.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 14.09.2020 and first appeal dated 14.10.2020:-

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 14.09.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Varanasi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.10.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.10.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 21.10.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 24.10.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 24.10.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.10.2020 and the same is reproduced as under :-

The FAA vide order dated 21.10.2020 agreed with the reply of CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri U.K.Singh, Asstt. General Manager, Union Bank of India, Varanashi attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant sought information related to CSC digital network which were not facilitated by their bank. Therefore, they had accordingly replied that their bank had no CSC facility, unlike few other banks such as HDFC.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 09.10.2020. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. Moreover, it appears that the appellant had a grievance due to non-sanctioning of his loan. That being so, there appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.