Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 7940
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Surendra Singh Meena, Information Commissioner
Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: J&K Bank – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/DOFSR/A/2025/101598
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Satpal Singh
The respondent is obligated to exercise due diligence in tracing old records to provide a comprehensive response to an RTI application, failing which the Commission may order a revised reply.
Headnote:The matter pertains to an appeal under the Right to Information Act where the applicant sought specific details regarding the submission of a Trust Deed, account opening details, PAN card linkage, and debit transactions for a specific bank account. The respondent bank provided partial information but could not ascertain certain dates due to the age of the records. The primary issue is whether the respondent provided complete and satisfactory information as per the RTI request. The respondent's contention is that the records are very old, although they committed during the hearing to provide any available information in a revised reply. The respondent is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant within three weeks after receipt of this order.
Relevant Facts Emerging from Appeal:
RTI application : 15.10.2024
PIO replied on : 29.10.2024
First Appeal filed on : 28.11.2024
First Appeal Order on : 23.12.2024
2nd Appeal received on : 07.01.2025
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:
“a) Please let me know in which year was the Trust Deed dated 06.05.1982 (copy enclosed for your ready reference) provided to your bank with respect to the above-mentioned account number.
b) The date of account opening as per the reply of the First Appellate Authority is 03.02.1982. Please let me know whether the above mentioned account was originally opened as an account belonging to the Trust namely Annapurna Devi Ganeriwala Charitable Trust. Please reply in yes or no.
c) Please let me know if PAN Card is mandatory to be linked/associated with a savings account number. Please reply in yes or no.
d) Please let me know if any PAN Card was linked to the above account for the period 03.02.1982 till 27.06.2018. Please reply in yes or no. If yes, kindly provide the PAN details
e) Please let me know if any PAN Card was linked to the above account after 27.06.2018 Please reply in yes or no. If yes, kindly provide the PAN details.
f) Please let me know if there are any debit transactions in the account from 03.08.1994 till 27.05.2005.”
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“a) With regard to trust deed dated 06.05.1982 associated with account no 0126040100001518, it is to state that the said document is on record along with the account opening form. However, the exact date of submission thereof could not be ascertained.
b) As per the account opening card for the said account dated 03.02.1982, the name of the account is mentioned as "THE EXECUTOR ESTATE SMT ANNAPURNA DEVI",
c) In response to your query regarding PAN requirements for trust saving accounts, PAN is generally mandatory as per RBI guidelines. However, in cases where the trust doesn't possess a PAN, they may submit Form 60 as an alternative în compliance with regulatory provisions.
d) The PAN has been punched in the account but the exact date of punching could not be ascertained.
e) The PAN has been punched in the account but the exact date of punching could not be ascertained.
f) With regard to debit transactions in the account the matter has been taken up with our backend team and the response is awaited.”
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2024 stated as under:-
“Reference is invited to your captioned application. In this context, we may convey that the bank has provided the detailed information vide letter dated 29.10.2024 w.r.t the mentioned account against your letter dated 15.10.2024. The bank cannot provide any further information to you as desired by you vide query no 1 and 2 in the fresh application dated 28.11.2024.
However the copy of statement showing debit transactions has been enclosed against the information desired in query no 3 in the supra mentioned application.”
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The appellant remained absent.
The respondent Mr. Satpal Singh, CPIO, was present in-person.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the reply to the RTI application has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 29.10.2024. The respondent during hearing submitted that data/records sought in the RTI application is very old and after tracing the record, he will provide the information sought to the appellant if available, in the revised reply.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, the respondent is directed to provide revised reply to the appellant, within three weeks afte
