SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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 askedYour 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.DateCommis sionGST AMTDateCommis sionGST AMTGST Invoic e No. & Invoic e copy requir ed
    51060IGL0001 11715.12.20 21264404759.2 423.12.2 013220023796Please Provid e
    51060IGL0005 71624.11.20 21416007488.0 029.12.2 0520009360Please 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

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top