ORDER

(21.12.2022)

1. The issue under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated 11.03.2021 due to alleged non-supply of information vide the RTI application dated 10.02.2021 are as under:-

Kindly initiate necessary action as per the provisions of the RTI Act

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 10.02.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Ludhiana, seeking following information:

(i) “Name of the Chief Manager, Bank of India, Mullanpur-Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana 141101 as on 23.03.2018

(ii) Name of the Chief Manager, Bank of India, Mullanpur-Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana 141101 as on 04.06.2018

(iii) Name of the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Mullanpur-Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana 141101 as on 09.04.2019

(iv) Name of the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of India, Mullanpur-Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana 141101 as on 13.06.2019”

The CPIO vide letter dated 19.02.2021 replied to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the same, the complainant filed first appeal dated 20.02.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.03.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed complaint dated 11.03.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 11.03.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The complainant 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 19.02.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“We have examined your RTI application dated 10.02.2021 and we may advise that wherein you have sought various information’s Name of Chief Managers as on 23.03.2018, 04.06.2018, and name of Branch Manager as on 09.04.2019 and 13.06.2019.

In this regard we may advise that you have not disclosed that you are customer of the bank nor there has been any evidence showing privity of contract with you. Hence, in absence of any privity of contract we are unable to provide you the information.”

The FAA vide order dated 09.03.2021 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO,

5. The complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Hemant Kumar Harish, Assistant General Manager, Bank of India, Ludhiana, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant had sought information regarding names of Chief Manager and Branch Manager. However, the complainant was not their customer. Hence, the information was not parted with the complainant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes the reply was given by the CPIO on 19.02.2021, However, the names of the officers may be put in public domain, if not already done in compliance of the mandate given under the provisions of section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act. That being so, there appears to be no mala fide on the part of the CPIO. Further, the complainant remained absent and in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

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