ORDER

(10.02.2022)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.08.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 19.02.2019 and first appeal dated 02.04.2019:-

(i) Bank guarantee No. 13851BGIS120109 dated 03.12.2012 issued by the respondent bank to him.

(ii) Bank guarantee No. 13851BGIS120110 dated 03.12.2012 issued by the respondent bank to him.

(iii) FDR of B. Puttaswamy No. 138503311001515 for Rs. 2,70,000/-.

(iv) FDR of B. Puttaswamy No. 138503311001516 for Rs. 2,80,000/-.

(v) Lean document dated 03.12.2012 of above FDR’s for issue of bank guarantee favoring him from B.Puttaswamy.

(vi) S.B. Account No. 13520101010001433 of B.Puttaswamy dated 04.02.2018 in your bank.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.02.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Mysore, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.07.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 22.08.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.08.2019 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 02.07.2019 and the same is reproduced as under :-

(i) The Bank guarantee No. 13851BGIS120109 dated 03.12.2012 issued by the branch in the name of Kalpana Associates got closed on 17.06.2014.

(ii) Bank guarantee No. 13851BGIS120110 dated 03.12.2012 issued by MUDA branch got closed on 17.05.2014.

(iii) Lean document dated 03.12.2012 of FDRs favoring yourself from Mr. B.Puttaswamy-branch could not trace the same due to efflux of time.

(iv) As far as point nos. 4 to 6 concerned, the information desired from our bank is third party information and available to the bank in its fiduciary relationship with the customers/borrowers etc. and bank is bound to maintain secrecy of the transaction/details of its customers etc. and therefore your request for information is rejected under section 8(1)(e) of the Act.”

The FAA did not pass any order

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajnish, Senior Manager, Vijaya Bank, Mysore, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that e-Vijaya Bank and e-Dena Bank was amalgamated with Bank of Baroda on 01.04.2019. They stated that immediately after the amalgamation many of the branches/offices were collocated with other branches and offices. It was further informed that due to merger of the banks RTI application and the first appeal were not available with them. They requested the Commission to provide copy of the RTI application to provide proper reply to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. Moreover, the respondent during the course of hearing submitted that due to merger of the bank RTI application as well as the first appeal was not traceable hence they were not in a position to contest the case properly. It may not be out of place to mention that copy of the RTI application as well as the other relevant documents can be obtained from the web portal of the Commission accessible by all public authorities. However, the same was not done by the respondent and appeared before the Commission without preparation which was viewed seriously by the Commission. Further, the respondent is directed