PIO requested the appellant to provide details of information sought so that complete information could be provided; Letter was returned undelivered as address not traceable - CIC: Respondent has made due efforts to furnish information; appeal dismissed
O R D E R
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 28.10.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 11.07.2017 and first appeal dated 26.08.2017:-
(i) महोदय कृपया मुझे आवᳰेदका ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक १५.०५.२०१७ को िलिखत आवेदन जो ᳰदनांक १७.०५.२०१७ को पजं ीकृत डाक ᳇ारा आपको ᮧेिषत ᳰकया गया था पर ᮧ᭜येक ितिथ को कᳱ गयी कायᭅवाही कᳱ सु᭭प᳥ एवं िव᭭तृत ᱨप से सुचना उपल᭣ध करायी जाये साथ ही ᮰ीमान के सुचना से असंतु᳥ होने पर ᳰकस अिधकारी के समᭃ ᮧथम अपील दायर करना होगा ?
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.07.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Kutcheri Road, Allahabad, UP seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply. The appellant has filed first appeal dated 26.08.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 28.10.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 28.10.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO & FAA did not reply. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action.
4. As presented by the appellant, the CPIO as well as the FAA did not give any reply.
5. The appellant remained absent and the respondent represented by Shri Shreeshan Shandilya, Chief Manager (Law) & ACPIO, State Bank of India attended the hearing through Video Conference.
5.1. The respondent inter alia informed that the CPIO sent a letter dated 16.10.2017 to the appellant requesting her to provide details of the information sought by her so that complete information sought by her could be provided as per RTI Act. However, the letter was returned undelivered by postal department citing address not traceable being the reason. After receiving notice of hearing from the Hon’ble Commission, the CPIO again sent a letter dated 21.6.2019 with the same request that details of information sought may kindly be provided by the appellant. The respondent further submitted that they had contacted the appellant on telephone and she had informed him that there were some issues which were now settled and no information remained to be provided.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that the respondent has made due efforts to furnish the information required by the appellant. In the absence of the required details of the appellant, the respondent has done the needful at their end. On perusal of the submissions made by the respondent during the course of hearing, the Commission feels that no action is called for. The appellant neither appeared nor sent any objection or reaction to the communication made by the respondent twice. The second letter dated 12.6.2019 which was sent after ascertaining the address of the appellant over telephone may be presumed to have been delivered to her. The Commission further feels that no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the matter.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Ruby Kumari v. CPIO: State Bank of India in Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/175926, Dated: 04.07.2019