Info under RTI Act can't be refused for non submission of Identity Proof

CPIO was not right in insisting on a
proof of identity and the Appellate Authority was not right in denying a
number of information by citing the above provisions of the RTI Act.Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000216 dated 11-06-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 25 November 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri S. C. Das
                      
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of India,

                             
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri P.K. Sangumkar was present.
2.
In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated June 11,
2008, requested the CPIO for a number of information regarding the
decision of the Bank to remove him from the panel of approved valuers. The
CPIO replied on June 25, 2008 asking him to produce a proof of his identity
before he could provide any information. The Appellant went before the
Appellate Authority against this and that authority disposed of the appeal in
his order dated August 12, 2008. He directed the CPIO to provide part of the
information but, in general, held that much of the information sought by the
Appellant was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) and (j) of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act. It is against this order that the Appellant has
come before the CIC in second appeal.
3.
We heard this case through videoconferencing. Both the parties were
present in the Bhubaneswar studio of the NIC. After hearing their
submissions, we are of the view that CPIO was not right in insisting on a
proof of identity and the Appellate Authority was not right in denying a
number of information by citing the above provisions of the RTI Act. In any
case, during the hearing, the Appellant stated that he was only interested in

getting a clear reply from the CPIO only on his query number 4, namely,
about the reasons for excluding his name from the panel of valuers. He was
no longer interested in the remaining information.
4.
In view of the above, we now direct the CPIO to provide to the
Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order, certified
photocopies of the relevant pages of the file in which the competent
authority decided to exclude him from the panel of valuers.
5. The case is, thus, disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the
CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2009/000216

Print Page