ORDER

(19.04.2023) 1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 16.08. 2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 05.02.2021 and first appeal dated 22.03.2021:-

 In the public interest, please arrange to provide the information within stipulated time frame as per RTI Act :-

1) Whether any bank account has been open in the name & style “Sunny Valley Apartment Owners’ Association” Account No *********192 in the Garia Branch of Bank of Maharashtra.

2) If yes, please provide copies of all documents submitted to your branch duly certified by competent authority 2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 05.02.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Kolkata. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.03.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.03.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 30.03.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 16.08.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 16.08.2021 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 10.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“As per the provisions laid down in Section 8 (1) (e ) and Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 we cannot provide you the information you sought.”

The FAA vide order dated 30.03.2021, upheld the CPIO’s reply.

5. The appellant represented by Advocate Anubhav Dutta attended the hearing through audio conference and the respondent remained absent despite notice.

5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that the appellant was member of ‘Sunny Valley Apartment Owners’ Association and being one of the member, he had every right to know the account details of the Association. However, the respondent had considered the appellant as third party and denied the information arbitrarily.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought information regarding account of ‘Sunny Valley Apartment Owners’. The respondent vide letters dated 10.03.2021 and 30.03.2021 replied that information sought pertained to third party and therefore they denied the information under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

The membership of the appellant would not entitle him to procure the information related to account of Sunny Valley Apartment Owners’. Perusal of the records further revealed that the appellant was not the authorized signatory of the account of the said association.

Therefore, there was no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent. Moreover, the CPIO remained absent without seeking leave of the Commission. Therefore, the CPIO is cautioned to be more careful in future. In view of the above and the reply having been given, there appears to be no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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