2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2100
केीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दली, New Delhi – 110067
ितीय अपील संया / Second Appeal No. CIC/UBIND/A/2022/127616
Sandeep Jain
… अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Union Bank of India
Jaipur
…ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01.03.2022
FA
: 31.03.2022
SA
: 10.06.2022
CPIO : 29.03.2022
FAO : Not on record
Hearing : 19.03.2024
Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon’ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.03.2022 seeking information on the following points:
- “In reference to our RTI application dated 27.10.2021, information under the provisions of Right to Information Act was asked as here under.
- (i) Please provide commission charges details & calculations (BG Wise) of below extended Bank Guarantee.
- (ii) Please provide copies of Generated GST invoices in case of extended BGs.
- In this connection your reply received vide letter RO Jaipur/Legal/159/RTI dated 17.01.2022 and information provided as here under:
| Information asked | Your reply |
| Please provide commission charges details & calculations (BG Wise) of below extended Bank Guarantee. | Details of commission charged as per Bank Guidelines 2% on Performance Bank Guidelines and 3 % on Financial Bank Guarantee plus GST is enclosed herewith. |
| Please provide copies of Generated GST invoices in case of extended BGs. | Branch certificate to the Borrower on BG commission along with GST Collected amount for the extended BG is enclosed herewith. |
| BG No. | Date | Commis sion | GST AMT | Date | Commis sion | GST AMT | GST Invoic e No. & Invoic e copy requir ed |
| 51060IGL0001 117 | 15.12.20 21 | 26440 | 4759.2 4 | 23.12.2 0 | 132200 | 23796 | Please Provid e |
| 51060IGL0005 716 | 24.11.20 21 | 41600 | 7488.0 0 | 29.12.2 0 | 52000 | 9360 | Please Provid e |
00 Please Provid e 51060IGL0005 217 12.11.20 21 12485 2247.3 0 06.01.2 1 24970.5 4494.5 9 Please Provid e 51060IGL0005 317 16.11.20 21 16110 2899.8 0 28.01.2 1 32220 5800 Please Provid e 51060IGL0005 417 15.11.20 21 13425 2416.5 0 28.01.2 1 26850 4833 Please 2 Provi de 51060IGL0001 518 17.11.20 21 20000 3600.0 0 29.04.2 1 30000 5400 Please Provid e 51060IGL00 03015 29.04.2 021 77209 13898.
00 Pleas e Provi de 51060IGL00 01718 17.11.2 021 20000 3600.0 0 18.05.
21 30000 5400 Pleas e Provi de 51060IGL00 01618 18.11.2 021 13608 2449 09.09.
21 95256 17146.
08 Pleas e Provi de In view of above, Please provide Generated GST Invoice No. & Generated Invoice copies.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
- “Information asked by you is not specific hence we are not able to provide the same.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.03.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The order of FAA, if any, is not on the record of the commission.
4. Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 10.06.2022.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Anit Jain, Law Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought details regarding the bank guarantees and GST invoices generated with respect to the accounts, since, he was unable to complete his books of accounts without the information.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the accounts referred to by the appellant had turned NPA and there was no balance in SB account. Therefore, the invoices were generated and the charges were debited from the bank’s internal account. Further, the CPIO clarified that the information, as sought in the RTI application, was not maintained by them. Hence, the same could not be provided to the appellant. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing 8. both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the respondent may not be compelled to create or collate information which was not maintained by them in due course of business. Therefore, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the p