Certified copy of the changes made for the authorised signatory of the HUF account of which the appellant was the karta were sought - CIC: Either provide the documents concerning the subsequent changes or state categorically that no such changes were made
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 16.9.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on four points regarding an HUF account as the karta. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 5.12.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 12.12.2013.
2. The Appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the response of the Respondents to the queries at (b) and (d) of his RTI application.
3. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant has two accounts with them, a business account (he is the proprietor) and an HUF account. He had given a mandate to his wife to operate his business account. Subsequently, his wife approached the bank for a cheque book of the HUF account. She was given a cheque book and seven cheques were encashed from the HUF account. The Respondents did not explain as to how the Appellant’s wife obtained a cheque book in respect of the HUF account, when she had a mandate in respect of the business account. In any case, this is not the issue before us and the Commission is not competent to address such issues. The limited issue before us is the queries of the RTI application. We find that in response to the query at (b), the FAA informed the Appellant vide his letter dated 25.9.2013 that no information was available with the branch on this issue. In this query, the Appellant had asked the Respondents to provide a certified copy of all the changes made till the date of his RTI application for the authorised signatory of the HUF account, along with the supporting documents submitted for such changes. The CPIO is directed to either provide the documents sought by the Appellant concerning the subsequent changes or state categorically that no such changes of authorised signatory were made. The CPIO is further directed to comply with our above directive within ten days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The Appellant wants the Respondents to state on sworn affidavit that no changes of authorised signatory were made. In this context, he stated that the Commission under Section 18 (3) of the RTI Act has the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court. However, we note that the matter before us is an appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act and not a complaint under Section 18. Further, having perused the records and taking into account the submissions made before us, we do not consider it necessary to order disclosure of any further information in response to the query at (d).
4. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Sudhir Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000027