Shri. Chandrakant C Anandpara Vs. Bank of India - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal the appellant has stated that no information has been taken on his appeal till date and information sought has not been provided.relevant facts emerging during hearing: both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. however, neither party appeared. from a perusal of the papers it appears that the appellant has affixed a rs.10/- court fee stamp on his application and therefore felt that he had paid the application fees. as per the central rules,“3. a request for obtaining information under subsection (1) of section 6 shall be accompanied by an application fee of rs. 10/- by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque payable to the accounts officer of the public authority.” these rules were modified subsequently stipulating that indian postal order would also be considered as a suitable mode of payment for the fees. the appellant has not paid the application fee by cash, demand draft, bankers’ cheque or ipo. the appellant affixed rs.10/- court fee stamp which in an accepted mode of payment for maharasthra state government bodies. hence the pio has rejected the application. it would have been in the proper spirit of.....

Judgment:

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067 Tel No: +91-11-26161796

Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001250/SG/15061 Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001250/SG Relevant Facts Emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Chandrakant C. Anandpara Chairman Consumer Care Forum Flat No. 7/C, Ridge Apt 18 Ridge Road Mumbai- 400006 : Public Information Officer Bank of India Walkeshwar Branch Walkeshwar Road Mumbai- 400006 : 07/01/2011 : 25/01/2011 : 15/02/2011 : No decision : 18/04/2011

Respondent

RTI Application filed on PIO Replied on First Appeal filed on Order of the FAA Second Appeal filed on

Information Sought The information sought by the Appellant as per the RTI Application is as follows:1. In which year the lockers were installed in the Bank, their type, their size and rent charged thereof per year. 2. The statement for the said lockers, rental charges from the day of installation upto 2010. 3. The reasons linked with the hike in rental charges of lockers. 4. Whether the charges are proportionate to the hike in rental charges. Also, provide the comparison chart. 5. Any guidelines issued by the RBI in this regard. The application has a 10 rupee Court fee stamp affixed to it. PIO’s Reply The PIO in his reply has stated that since the Appellant has forwarded the application without the payment of requisite fees, his application has been rejected. Grounds of First Appeal The Appellant has stated that his Appeal has been rejected and no information has been provided. Order of the First Appellate Authority According to the Appellant, no decision has been taken by the First Appellate Authority till date. Grounds of Second Appeal The Appellant has stated that no information has been taken on his Appeal till date and information sought has not been provided.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that the Appellant has affixed a Rs.10/- court fee stamp on his application and therefore felt that he had paid the application fees. As per the central rules,“3. A request for obtaining information under subsection (1) of Section 6 shall be accompanied by an application fee of Rs. 10/- by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque payable to the Accounts officer of the Public authority.” These rules were modified subsequently stipulating that Indian Postal Order would also be considered as a suitable mode of payment for the fees. The Appellant has not paid the application fee by cash, demand draft, bankers’ cheque or IPO. The Appellant affixed Rs.10/- court fee stamp which in an accepted mode of payment for Maharasthra State Government Bodies. Hence the PIO has rejected the application. It would have been in the proper spirit of the Right to Information if the PIO had informed the Appellant that the payment by Court Fee Stamp was no acceptable for Central Government Bodies.

Decision: The Appeal is disposed. It appears that the application fee was not paid in the appropriate manner.

This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 05 October 2011

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)