Jump to content
Atul Patankar

Vijay Naik used the RTI to know why in 2000 his bank cut off his capital limit for no reason

Recommended Posts

Atul Patankar

As reported by Nitin Brahme at punemirror.in on November 11, 2009

 

Vijay Naik, co-owner of a small scale unit in Pune, Electrovision, struggled for years to make sense of the ‘shock’ he received in January 2000, after the Central Bank of India without any reason cancelled the capital limit of Rs 17 lakh extended to his unit. Naik had been a customer of the bank for 15 years.

 

“In January 2000, a branch manager and four officers of the Central Bank of India regional office suspiciously and suddenly cancelled our entire working capital limit.

 

It was a shock to me. I was working with the same bank before and knew all the rules and practices at the bank,” says Naik.

 

Naik pursued the matter for five years by submitting three complaints to the bank’s various offices upto the head office. “I approached the complaints redressing authorities (CRA) right upto the Reserve Bank of India.

 

I tried to find out the actual cause of the act and its documentation, but bank officers and executives at the Central Bank of India, including the public information officer (PIO) and appellate authority, suppressed the case and locked the files for 5 years,” says Naik.

 

In year 2005, the RTI Act came into realisation. “The PIO at Central Bank refused my RTI application in writing and so I approached the Appellate Authority.

 

Finally, I approached the CIC in Delhi. However, the CIC to dragged its feet and inspite of submitting proof against the bank, they took no action.

 

Just for the simple and legitimate task of allowing me to inspect the files, CIC New Delhi, conducted two unwarranted personal hearings (PH) at Delhi,” said Naik.

 

“On November 26, 2005, I started correspondence on the basis of RTI Act and fought till April 12, 2007 for about 16 months as opposed to the 30-day deadline,” added Naik. Also, the whole process cost him over Rs 20,000 as opposed to the Rs 10 official fee.

 

Naik, at last, tasted success. “The CIC released an order stating no officer/ staff can prepare internal notings, P&C documents on fake and fabricated information or documents.

 

Also, no executive can intentionally or unintentionally or by oversight approve or sign on such internal non-public notes, unless they are absolutely true,” Naik informed.

 

“Complaints with proofs obtained through RTI process were submitted to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Central Bank of India. They are still pending with him,” said Naik.

 

Vijay Kumbhar, RTI activist said, “I have studied the Vijay Naik’s RTI case and it has been proved that the Central Bank is dening to release papers under the RTI Act.

 

All nationalised banks also fall under the purview of the RTI Act and non-compliance should be dealt with by the CIC.

Source: Vijay Naik used the RTI to know why in 2000 his bank cut off his capital limit for no reason, News - City - Pune Mirror,Pune Mirror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • sidmis
      By sidmis
      BCCI not covered by RTI law
      Press Trust of India
      Friday, January 25, 2008 7:42 PM (New Delhi)
      Reported by NDTV.com: BCCI not covered by RTI law
       
      The country's apex cricket governing body BCCI could not be made accountable to provide information to citizens under the Right to Information law, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has held.
      In a recent order, the CIC rejected a citizen's plea to seek from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) certain information about its affairs.
       
      Nagpur-based Anil Chintaman Khare in his RTI application had submitted that BCCI was registered under the Societies Registration Act and should be termed a "public authority" for the purposes of making it accountable under the transparency law.
       
      The BCCI, however, contested the applicant's claim stating that despite being registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, it was not constituted under the Constitution or any law made by the Parliament or any state legislature.
       
      Concurring with BCCI's stand, Information Commissioner Padma Balasubramanian said: "Registration under an Act is different from being established under it. Merely because BCCI is registered under the Societies Registration Act, does not bring it under the purview of RTI Act."
       
      In its arguments before the Commission, the BCCI had contended that it did not receive any funds, directly or indirectly, from the Centre and also did not have on its board any nominee from any government.
       
      The applicant said BCCI received a lot of tax benefits from the government and hence should be made answerable to the people of the country.
       
      The Commission came to its decision after finding that BCCI did not fall under any of the categories required to bring any public office under the RTI Act.
    • karira
      By karira
      Maharashtra Gas Limited (MGL) which supplies pipeline gas to Mumbai has been ruled as a Public Authority.
       
      The full decision of the CIC is attached to this post.
       
      It has many arguments for and against being a Public Authority - will be interesting for members to note for future references.
       
      The appellant was Mr Semlani, a RTI Activist, who passed away recently in Mumbai at the age of 72.
      MA-01082008-10.pdf

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy