ORDER

(26.08.2022)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 09.06.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 18.01.2020 and first appeal dated 17.02.2020 :-

In reference to a crossed account payee cheque issued in the appellant’s favour of Rs. tweleve thousand five hundred rupees (Cheque No. ***18 dated 25.08.2007) of Canara Bank Gopal Nagar Branch , Amritsar paid by Mr. Harish Kumar. In this regard, provide the following specific information under RTI:

(i) The reason of bouncing above mentioned cheque.

(ii) Provide the account number from which the above mentioned was issued.

(iii) State Yes or No, as per available records with the bank, whether the account from which the above mentioned cheque was issued is currently active.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.01.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, Amritsar, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.01.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 17.02.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 12.03.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 09.06.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 09.06.2020 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 23.01.2020 and the same is reproduced as under :-

Reply for point nos. i), ii) and iii) – “The information sought under these points are treated as commercial confidence and disclosure of this would harm the competitive position of third party. Also undersigned is not satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. Hence, the information is exempted from disclosure under Sec. 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.”

The FAA vide order dated 12.03.2020 concurred with the reply given by CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sukhinder Singh, Dy. Manager and Shri Kulwant Singh, Advocate, Canara Bank, Amritsar attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was the drawee of crossed account payee cheque (Cheque No. 83218, dated 25.08.2007) for the amount of Twelve thousand five hundred rupees of Canara Bank Gopal Nagar Branch, Amritsar, (Branch Code: 002082, IFSC code: CNRB0002082 and MICR code: 143015004) paid by Mr. Harish Kumar S/o Nand Kishore, R/o H. No. 130, Gali No. 4, Gopal Nagar, Majitha Road, Amritsar. He stated that above mentioned cheque was bounced, hence the reason, account number of the drawer and status of the account (active/dormant) was requested from the respondent.

However, he contended that information was arbitrarily denied by the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought was of the year 2007 and during that time the bank was manually operated. They submitted that the after bouncing of the cheque the same was returned along with the cheque return memo to the collecting banker. Besides, they submitted that identity of the appellant could not be established as to whether the RTI applicant was the same person as the payee of the cheque. Therefore, the information sought was denied under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was evasive and misleading. As per the submissions made by the appellant the cheque No. ***18 dated 25.08.2007 in question was issued in his favour an