The RTI Act mandates that public authorities provide information as per their record retention policies, ensuring transparency and accountability.

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Copy of document on permission granted on an application dated 15.7.2016 written by Late Sh. Radhay Shyam Sharma father of the applicant owner Dr.

Ashok Kumar Sharma to PNB Branch Manager Shahpur Distt Kangra (HP) (ii) Copy of document on approval for aforesaid permission taken by PNB Branch Manager Shahpur Distt Kangra (HP) from his higher authorities (iii) If approval for aforesaid permission not taken/granted reason thereof in writing in the form of document (iv) Copy of document signed by the then Manager PNB Branch Shahpur in the office of Naib Tehsildar Tehsil Shahpur Distt Kangra (HP) on 15/16, July, 2016 in the Family Settlement Deed (Tamleeknama) file/other official file related to the applicant owner Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (v) Document on action taken on an application dated 19.08.2018 written by the applicant owner Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma to the Zonal Manager PNB Zonal Office Shimla on dated 19.08.2018 which was ultimately down marked to PNB Branch Manager Shahpur Distt Kangra (HP) through PNB Circle Office Dharamshala. …, etc./ other related information 2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

i-iii: No such information held on record so cannot be provided.

iv: Copy of letter dated 15.07.2016. Enclosure 1.

v: No such information held on record at Circle Office so cannot be provided.

..Etc. 3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.02.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 10.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Rajkumar Diwan, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 24.01.2023, wherein, available information had been provided to the appellant. When enquired by the Commission regarding non availability of information on points no. 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that they had searched for the records sought but could not locate them. Hence, they expressed their inability to provide the information to the appellant.

8.

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing 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 vide letter dated 24.01.2023. Regarding points no. 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8 of the RTI application, the Commission observes that the records pertaining to these points are not available with the respondent.

The Commission therefore directs the respondent to furnish a revised reply to the appellant citing the relevant record retention policy clauses against each of these points, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.

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