Central Information Commission Ratan Mani vs Canara Bank on 19 June, 2024 के ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई द ली, New Delhi 110067 ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CANBK/A/2023/109345 Ratan Mani ... अपीलकता /Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Canara Bank, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent Nehru Place, New Delhi Relevant dates emerging from the appeal: SA : 30.07.2022 RTI : 17.06.2022 FA : 02.07.2022 resubmitted on 16.12.2022 CPIO : 28.06.2022 FAO : 27.07.2022 Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date of Decision: 18.06.2024 Hon'ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM ORDER 1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.06.2022 seeking information on the following points: "Details of total receipts in Foreign Currency between period September 2015 to December 2019 (i) Your ref. no. (ii) FIRC no. (iii) Date of receipt (iv) Remitters name Page 1 of 3 (v) Name of currency (vi) Amount received in foreign currency (vii) Amount applied against export SB no. (viii) Amount applied against our invoice no. (ix) Amount applied against your export ref. no. (x) Balance pending if any to be applied lying till date unutilized." 2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.06.2022 and the same is reproduced as under: "I have examined your RTI application and observed that the information sought by you pertains to normal banking operations/procedures is made available through normal regular procedures in accordance with the banking system. To obtain the sought information, please contact our MCB Noida branch and obtain the sought information. You may refer to the decision of the Central Information Commission in the case of Smt. Madhavi Chahar vs SBI Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000308/VS/02200 dated 20.02.2013." 3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.07.2022. The FAA vide order dated 27.07.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO. 4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.07.2022 resubmitted on 16.12.2022. 5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing (the notice of hearing sent to him came back undelivered with the remarks "Left") and on behalf of the Respondent, Bhavesh Garg, Law Officer & Rep. of CPIO along with Priyanka Garg, Law Officer attended the hearing in person. 6. The Respondent sought to place on record a letter sent by the Appellant to the Commission with reference to certain matters listed for hearing on 14.07.2023, wherein he had stated that all his grievances and complaints against the Canara Bank are settled, and Page 2 of 3 he does not wish to seek any further information. Further, all his RTI Applications and Appeals are also being withdrawn by him vide the said letter of the Appellant. The Respondents further expressed their apprehension that as on date the Appellant has relocated or is residing outside of the country. 7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the Appellant has not specified any grounds of second appeal or his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case and considering the submissions of the Respondent, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter. 8. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties. Sd/ आनंदी राम लंगम) (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म सूचना आयु ) Info