O R D E R

(05.07.2023)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.07.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 15.05.2021 and first appeal dated 23.08.2021:- (i) The copy of the instructions/regulations by which the orders of the ombudsman at the pages 30 to 33 of the written statement in the Honble Consumer forum were not applicable in the loan no. **********0131 in the name of Deepinder Singh S/o Jaspal Singh.

(ii) The copy of the calculation sheet for the refund/ credit to the account for the orders of the ombudsman at the pages 30 to 33 of the written statement in the Honble Consumer forum were not applicable in the loan no ***********131 in the name of Deepinder Singh S/o Jaspal Singh.

(iii) The copy of the instructions / regulations by which the orders of the ombudsman at the pages 30 to 33 of the written statement in the Honble Consumer forum were applicable in the loan no **********0179 in the name of Jaspal Singh.

(iv) The copy of the instructions / regulations by which the orders of the ombudsman at the pages 30 to 33 of the written statement in the Honble Consumer forum were not applicable in the loan no **********0179 in the name of Jaspal Singh.

(v) The copy of the calculation sheet for the refund/ credit to the account for the orders of the ombudsman at the pages 30 to 33 of the written statement in the Hon’ble Consumer forum were not applicable in the loan no **********0179 in the name of Jaspal Singh.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.05.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, Ludhiana, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.06.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.08.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 15.09.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 14.07.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 14.07.2022 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 03.06.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:- “The information sought by you in your applications regarding your loan accounts cannot be provided because the matter is sub judice and the disclosure of any information sought by you in your RTI applications may constitute Contempt of Court. Therefore the whole information sought by you is denied under Section 8 (1)

(b) of the RTI Act.”

The FAA vide order dated 15.09.2021 stated that it was the 2nd duplicate first appeal in the same RTI. Hence, appeal was disposed of and returned to the applicant.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ram Sharan, CPIO/Asstt. General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Ludhiana attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had re- visited the RTI application and provided additional information after FAA’s order. Further, the appellant had filed multiple petitions before Banking Ombudsman and the information could not be disclosed since the matters were sub judice.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was unclear. It may be noted that the respondent had given a common reply to the RTI applications filed by the applicant, instead of individually dealing with each of them. Further, information could not be denied merely on the ground that related matters were sub judice. Therefore,