Action taken regarding seizure of counterfeit bank notes – appellant along with a group of four people had filed 42 applications on the same matter – such cases disproportionately divert a large amount of public authority’s time
O R D E R
1. The appellant, referring to his complaint dated 31.1.2012, filed an RTI application with the PIO on 19.4.2012 seeking information with reference to a certain matter of counterfeit notes, day to day progress report, copies of note sheets and replies submitted. Information was sought on 5 points. The PIO responded on 25.5.2012. The appellant filed an appeal on 15.6.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of PIO on 2.7.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 25.7.2012 in second appeal.
2. The appellant’s representative participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent participated in the hearing personally.
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 19.4.2012 and stated that he was seeking information about the action taken by the respondent in the matter of seizure of counterfeit bank notes that had been enquired into by the bank authorities and the police department and which also went to the courts. It was in this connection, the appellant said, that he was seeking information about the action taken on the FIR lodged. The appellant said that he is yet to get the complete information from the respondent.
4. The respondent said that this is an old matter which has come to the Commission on many occasions in the past. The respondent said that there is a dismissed employee of the bank who has formed a group of four people, who have up till now submitted 42 applications on the same matter as per the record of the bank.
5. The respondent stated that the respondent has responded to the queries raised in the RTI application on so many occasions in the past and a disproportionately large amount of time of the bank has already been spent in the disposal of the RTI applications. The respondent further stated that the documents have been submitted to the appellant in the past.
6. The respondent stated that since the information sought has already been provided, the RTI matter may be allowed to close.
7. The decision of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
Citation: Shri Dharmendra Kumar Agarwal v. Punjab National Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001034/04048