Improper submission of RTI application fee and inadequate provision of information required for retrieving records led to dismissal of the second appeal.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:

(i) We are the applicant's father late Shankarbhai Haribhai Bhardiwala who died on 06/07/2011. He had Savings account in your Bank of India Textile Market branch. From this account my late father had drawn demand draft no.372220 of Rs.2,90,280/- on 04/11/1988. So please provide the complete detailed information of my late father's account from 01/01/1988 to 31/12/1988 with necessary evidence. Please provide this information as required for court proceedings / private work. We are happy and ready to pay the cost to get it.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

You may please note that as per the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005, a request for obtaining information under Section 6 (1) of the Act shall be accompanied by an application fee of rupees ten by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the public authority, else the same is not maintainable. You have paid court fee of Rs. 20.00 through adhesive stamp which is not acceptable as application fee and hence the same is not considered as an RTI Application and thus rejected. However, this does not preclude you from making a fresh application addressed to the Central Public Information Officer enclosing therewith proper application fee as mentioned above.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 04.07.2024 stated that:

We have your appeal dated 18-06-2024 and RTI dated 10-05-2024. Referring to the application, in which you have asked for the statement of the savings account of Mr. Shankarbhai Haribhai Bhardiwala of Textile Market Branch of our bank from 01/01/1988 to 31-12-1988. In this regard you have furnished documentary proof that you are one of the sons and legal heirs of Mr. Shankarbhai Haribhai Bhardiwala and seeking information in such capacity.

Regarding the information sought in your application and appeal, our branch has informed us that there is no record of the savings account in the name of Shri Shankarbhai Haribhai Bhardiwala. Further, please note that the information sought is 36 years old and relevant details like account number, copy of passbook etc. related to the account of Mr. Shankarbhai H Bhardiwala have not been provided by you so we are unable to obtain the account details sought.

Also, the information provided by you is not sufficient as you have given only the number of the 36 year old demand draft issued in the year 1988. Therefore, we are not in a position to provide you the information.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.10.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent B.V. Chawla, Deputy Zonal Manager, and CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had not initially deposited RTI fee in the prescribed mode of payment. However, the appellant had rectified the same at the stage of first appeal and they had accordingly replied that the information sought is 36 years old and relevant details like account number, copy of passbook etc. related to the account of Mr. Shankarbhai H Bhardiwala have not been provided by appellant to enable them to obtain the account details sought.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of