CIC: IBPS is not a public authority u/s 2(h) - CIC: It is clear that the IBPS had conducted the examination on behalf of the Allahabad Bank, therefore, Allahabad Bank is also the custodian of records - CIC: Provide the information regarding the exams22 Oct, 2017
1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 23.06.2016 seeking information regarding year wise result for the examination conducted for the scale promotions of officers of Allahabad bank, etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 01.07.2016. The first appeal of the complainant is not on record. The response of FAA is not on record. The complainant filed a complaint on 01.08.2016 before the Commission on the ground that information has been denied to him.
3. The complainant participated in the hearing through VC. The respondent was absent.
4. The complainant referred to his RTI application dated 23.06.2016 and stated that no information was provided to him.
5. The complainant stated that the respondent conducted examination on behalf of the Allahabad Bank. He stated that he has given all his details to the respondent but the respondent denied the information on misleading grounds.
6. The complainant stated that the respondent is the custodian of records and earlier CIC has also declared IBPS as Public Authority.
7. The complainant stated that he had filed similar RTI application dated 23.06.2016 with the Allahabad Bank but they have not furnished to him complete information.
8. The Commission is of the view that this Commission vide decision No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000802 dated 04.09.2017 held that the IBPS is not a public authority under section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act. Hence, it does not come under the purview of the RTI Act.
9. However, it is clear from the record and the statement made by the complainant that the respondent has conducted examination on behalf of the Allahabad Bank, therefore, Allahabad Bank is also the custodian of records.
10. As information is being sought, this may be treated as second appeal.
11. The Deputy Registrar is directed to send complete file to the CPIO, Allahabad Bank H.O. (along with this order), who in turn should reply to the appellant on his RTI application dated 23.06.2016, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO, Allahabad Bank H.O., if necessary, may take assistance from the respondent.
12. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection in Complaint No. CIC/MP/C/2016/000219, Date of Decision: 29.09.2017