ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “That, my client sent you notices dated 02.03.2022 and dated 26.04.2022 in respect of which you is the financer.

(ii) That, inspite of receiving notice you not replied in writing except saying you not replied in writing except saying you are talking necessary steps in the refund.

Sir, kindly under the provision of Right to Information and send me the details of work/steps taken by you in the light of the abovesaid notice.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “After perusing the application, we observed that the information asked by you in the RTI Application is not properly elaborated and the same cannot be understood by us to provide you with the relevant information.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.10.2022. In response to the First Appeal, a reply was furnished to the Appellant on 16.11.2022 stating as under:

“Being unable to understand whether you were appointed/authorized by Mr. Gopal Kumar Sinha, we sent our reply to him. In banking area, we cannot disclose any information io any third party without concurrence of the account holder.”

4. Aggrieved with the response received on the First Appeal, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.12.2022.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Dinesh Prasad, DGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Respondent submitted that since the RTI Application was not accompanied with any record to show that the Borrower had consented to the Advocate Appellant seeking information related to his account, the Appellant was informed accordingly on 16.11.2022. Further, upon a query from the Commission regarding no such objection raised in the CPIO’s reply of 26.09.2022, the Respondent urged that since he was not the designated CPIO at the time, he is unable to comment on the same. Furthermore, the emphasis on the Appellant in not having submitted any authorization from his client/borrower was spelt out in their written submissions filed prior to the hearing which was also brought to the attention of the bench.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the information sought for by the Appellant does not ask for any record per se, but interrogates the CPIO about any steps taken on alleged notices sent on behalf of the Appellant’s client. Moreover, considering the absence of the Appellant to rebut the contentions of the Respondent regarding his locus standi in asking for the information of a third party, the Commission finds no scope of any relief to be ordered in the matter.

Nonetheless, the Commission takes grave exception to the fact that the instant First Appeal was responded to by an officer other than the FAA designated under the RTI Act which amounts to an instance of jurisdictional excess committed by the officer responding to the First Appeal as well as an abrogation of a statutory duty cast upon the FAA by virtue of the RTI Act. A copy of this order is marked to the FAA to take note of the adverse observations of the Commission in this regard and to strictly ensure against similar recurrences in the future.

8. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/- (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी आनंदी आनंदी आनंदी रामलंगम रामलंगम रामलंगम रामलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना सूचना सूचना सूचना आयु आयु आयु आयु) दनांक/Date: 08.01.2024 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Bank of India, Deputy Zonal Manager & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Zonal Office, Dhanbad Zone, S. R. Mansion, 2nd Floor, Shashtri Nagar, Dh