Reason why the appellant’s bank had been frozen - PIO: local police had requested for freezing of the account - a party in Lebanon had complained of tampering with documents implicating $ 20,000 in exports - CIC: no intervention required; appeal rejected
27 Nov, 2013Information from the bank about the reason why the appellant account in the bank had been frozen - PIO: the account was frozen following a letter requesting the freezing of the account was received from the local police station - the appellant was in the import export business with an entity in Lebanon and the party in Lebanon had made a complaint about the appellant having tampered with documents implicating $ 20,000 - CIC: appeal rejected
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 09.08.2012 seeking information pertaining to freezing of a certain savings bank account.
2. The PIO responded on 31.08.2012 and provided information to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal on 19.09.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response is not available on record. The appellant filed a second appeal on 06.11.2012 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant through his RTI application of 09.08.2012 had sought information from the bank about the reason why the appellant account in the bank had been frozen.
5. The respondent stated that they have provided full information to the appellant. The respondent explained that the account was frozen after a letter requesting the freezing of the account of the appellant had been sent by the local police station. The respondent stated that it seems from the letter from the police station that the appellant was in the import export business with an entity in Lebanon and the party in Lebanon had made a complaint about the appellant having tampered with documents implicating $ 20,000. The respondent stated that following this complaint, the police station had written the bank to freeze the appellant's account. The respondent stated that they have provided complete information to the appellant already by a letter of 31.08.2012.
6. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
Decision:
7. The Commission's intervention is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Mohd Abdul Saeed Khan v. Punjab National Bank in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001824/05437