के(cid:3)(cid:4)ीयसूचनाआयोग Central Information Commission , बाबागंगनाथमाग(cid:19) मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka , New Delhi – 110067 नई(cid:21)द(cid:23)ली
/ Second Appeal No.CIC/BKOIN/A/2019/126720 ि(cid:26)तीयअपीलसं(cid:30)या
Atul Ramniklal Mathuria … /Appellant अपीलकता(cid:19) VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Bank of India Malad (W), Mumbai … /Respondents (cid:31)ितवादीगण Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
CORAM:RTI : 19.12.2018 FA : 02.02.2019 SA : 01.06.2019 CPIO : 03.01.2019 FAO : 07.03.2019 Hearing : 06.10.2021
Hon’ble Commissioner SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
O R D E R
(11.10.2021)
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 01.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 19.12.2018 and first appeal dated 02.02.2019:-
System generated documents, laws applicable, method to authenticate (i) Definition/applicable laws to define system generated documents.
(ii) Copy of laws and provisions that defines/prescribes such system generated documents and its method of authentication.
(iii) List of documents given by the branch to customers which are system generated documents and does not require any signature or stamp of the bank.
(iv) List of documents which a customer can give to branch which are system generated and does not require any signature.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.12.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Andheri East, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.01.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.02.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 07.03.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 01.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 01.06.2019 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 03.01.2019 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) On going through the application we understand that the appellant wanted to know the things from them which are generally available on the internet site which the appellant can extract from there. However, as per the standard definitions the system generated information means an electronic document which is taken out from the system automatically. For its authentication an electronic document require an electronic signature as prescribed under the Information Technology Act to gain the legal sanctity in the Indian Court of Law. In our banking system generally we generate the statement of account and if it is to be submitted in the court it is certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act as per the latest amendment effected thereof. Further the system generated statement of account is not authenticated by the bank officials if the customer is taking it for verification of the balances of his account. However, on his specific request if the appellant wanted to submit in any court or in Government institutions it is for validity and authentication they require the signature and seal. In such a circumstance branch is signing and sealing the document for its authentication.
(ii) CPIO had already specified what is the system generated document and its method of authentication in the above clarification.
(iii) CPIO had already specified in the above clarification that CPIO generally give the print out of the statement of account as per the request of the customer without any signature unless there is specific request from the borrower/customer.
Generally, CPIO were taking the documents from the borrowers and customers for the audit purpose or for the verification purpose or if it is required for the purposes of filing in the court then every document is required to be verified and authenticated by the borrower by putting his signature”.
The FAA vide order dated 07.03.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Yashwant Ingole, Chief Manager (Legal), Bank of India, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was not satisfactor
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.