ORDER

(24.04.2023) 1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 18.02.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 16.11.2020 and first appeal dated 10.12.2020:-

i) Specific extracts of guidelines/instructions of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regarding inoperative and dormant &Blocked saving bank accounts, along with the reference number circular number of RBI.

ii) Specific extracts of bank’s instructions & guidelines in respect of non-operative & dormant & locked SB A/c and reasons for over rule of RBI guidelines, if any.

iii) If any person or culprit is not adhering to rules & regulations, the concerned authority is recovering penalty or charges, the said person is free to act further within the rules after payment of penalty or charges (not continuing punishment). Likewise after recovering A/c inoperative charges on that date onward, your bank has to allow the customer to operate SB a/c automatically.

Please furnish your opinions, view and specific explanations as well as reasons for not doing so.

iv) Your bank has returned cheque unpaid with reason :“account blocked “(situation covered in 21-25). Furnish your explanations under situations 21,22,23,24,25 separately.

v) Reasons for not sending notices to your customers regarding A/c becoming ‘inoperative’ dormant & blocked if their mobile numbers for emails not available to him. Some cooperative banks (SUC, Abhinaya) some private bank (Kotak-Mahindra, YES) are sending some letter to SB A/c holders before taking further steps with or without charge vi) Reasons for non-printing instruction for inoperative SB A/c on SB A/c pass book & steps to make inoperative to operative A/c.

vii) Reasons for not displaying such important instruction for inoperative SB Ac & charges on the branches place/notice board.

viii) Other banks are treating SB A/C as inoperative after 3 years. Why period reduces to 1 year and why cash deposit is not allowed for operations.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 16.11.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.12.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 10.12.2020. The First Appellate Authority(FAA)did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 18.02.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 18.02.2021 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 01.12.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“i) Available in Public Domain ii) Savings Bank where there has been no operation in the account by customers for one year (other than crediting of periodic interest in SB accounts or debiting service charges) it would be considered as a DORMANT ACCOUNT.

iii) Information sought for no Clear / specific.

iv) Copy enclosed.

V,vi,viii)You have not sought information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. You ore seeking clarification and, questioning and requesting CPIO to elicit his view and identify the rule or provision which would fit to the description. It is not coming under the purview of RTI Act. 2005.

The CIC in File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002214 in matter between Shri Amar Pal vs CPIO, Department of Personnel &Training dated 30.07.2012 held that subsection (j) of section 2 of the RTI Act, 2005 defines "right to information" and clearly states that a citizen c