ORDER

(03.08.2022)

1. The issue under consideration is the complaint for non-compliance dated 16.10.2017 & 06.02.2018 of CIC’s order dated 22.06.2017 in the matter.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed three applications all dated 07.09.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Regional office Delhi (North), Delhi. The CPIO replied on 28.09.2015 to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 11.12.2015. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal on 01.02.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed second appeal dated 04.04.2016 before the Commission which was heard and disposed of with the following directions:

“The Commission vide order dated 22.06.2017 directed the respondent to comply with the orders of the FAA in case no. CIC/SH/A/2016/000937, to provide the information on point no. 3 of the RTI application, if available on record in case No. CIC/SH/A/2016/0001071 and in case No. CIC/SH/A/2016/0001115 directed the CPIO to provide only the number of such cases reported to RBI and total outstanding amount against those cases.”

3. The appellant has filed the instant non-compliance complaints dated 16.10.2017 and 06.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that his RTI application was for information of entire Delhi (South Region as well as North Region). He admitted that he had received the information from the Union bank of India, North Region of Delhi and stated that no information was received from Regional Office South.

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order of the Commission, the CPIOs vide letters dated 27.07.2017, 31.10.2017 and same were again provided to the appellant at his new address on 20.02.2018.

5. The Registry upon receipt of the complaint for non-compliance sent communication dated 27.12.2018 and 22.10.2021 to the respondent seeking their written submissions thereupon. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2019 informed that they had already provided the information as per the directions of the Commission vide their letters dated 27.07.2017, 31.10.2017 and again on 20.02.2018. The appellant admitted that he had received the information from the CPIO, Union Bank of India, North Region, Delhi as well as CPIO, RO, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observes that the respondent complied with the directions of the Commission and provided the information vide letters dated 27.07.2017, 31.10.2017 and 20.02.2018. The appellant admitted that he had received the information from the CPIO, Union Bank of India, North Region, Delhi and CPIO, RO, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. The appellant in his complaint submitted that no information was provided by the CPIO, South Delhi Region. Perusal of the records reveals that CPIO, South Delhi was not a party in the cases filed by the appellant and thus, there was no directions given to the CPIO of South Delhi. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant was not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the above and the information having been made available by the UBI, RO, Ajmere Gate, Delhi and UBI, RO (North), there appears to be no merit in the complaint for non-compliance. Accordingly, the complaints for non-compliance are closed.

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