के቎ኚरीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग,ग मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/608446 Mohit Goel … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Bank of India, Gurugram …्ቚनतवािीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2022 seeking information regarding his Loan account no. 6700XXXXXXXXX18 on the following points:

(i) The certified copies of all the documents, in the possession of BOI, are held by the bank before disbursing the loan amount including my loan application. (ii) The copies should be certified from the originals held with the bank.

(iii) Provide certified copy of my loan account statement till date.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Point (i) - We are furnishing you the certified copies of your loan application and loan sanction letter. The copies are enclosed with this letter.

Point (ii) - We are furnishing you with the certified copy of the loan account statement.

The copy is enclosed with this letter.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.11.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.01.2023 held as under:

“The documents sought by thee under thy RTI appeal are not identifiable at current, though we are trying to locate the documents at our best and seek some more time to supply the information. We are of hope that thou shall cooperate and support us for any assistance required at your end.”

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Akansha Jain, Legal Manager attended the hearing in Person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that all the documents sought by the Appellant has been furnished vide registered post dated 08.05.2023 and subsequently vide email dated 08.06.2023. She informed that as the original documents were misplaced, the respondent authority retrieved these documents from the builder and provided them to the Appellant. She further informed that same RTI Application has been previously filed by the Appellant Ms. Sunita Rani (being a co-

applicant) of the loan in which all the documents were furnished previously also.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of records, observes that in the absence of the Appellant during the hearing it cannot be ascertained whether the documents/information has been completely received by the Appellant till date. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine and furnish a revised reply to the Appellant within 15 days from the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

8. With the above observation and direction the matter is disposed of.

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

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनिं ी रामललगं म Information Commissioner (सचू ना आय दिनांक/Date: 06.06.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्)ग Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Bank of India, Deputy Zonal Manager & Nodal CPIO, Zonal Office: Delhi NCR, Batra House, Plot No.-52, Sector-32, Gurugram, Haryana-122003

2. Mohit Goel Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)