AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Ram Chander v. Central Public Information Officer: Punjab National Bank, Kurukshetra

    1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 21.08.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 23.05.2017 and first appeal dated 27.06.2017:

    2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.05.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Kurukshetra seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 19.06.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 27.06.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 21.08.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

    3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 21.08.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide satisfactory response.

    4. The CPIO replied that the account was closed on 31.07.2014 and the related documents are not available with the Branch.

    5. The appellant remained absent and respondent Mr. Nishikant Garg, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kurukshetra attended the hearing through video conferencing.

    5.1. The respondent submitted that the information relating to the calculation of miscellaneous charges etc. have been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 19.06.2017. He also submitted that account was closed on 31.07.2014. The other documents/file created at the time of loan is not available in their office. In the enclosure, the respondent had enclosed a copy of the account statement and details of the security released.

    6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that due reply has already been given to the appellant. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

    7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ram Chander v. Central Public Information Officer: Punjab National Bank, Kurukshetra
    (May 9, 2019)