I have carefully gone through the decision of the IC in this appeal. There are several missing links in this case and glaring lacuna on the part of Allahabad Bank too.
In an earlier decision on a similar matter connected with the same Allahabad Bank, IC Prof Ansari had given the following ruling: Decision No. 443/IC(A)/2006 F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00168 dated 12.12.2006
"There is an established procedure to decide as to who would be the claimant of the money in the bank account of the deceased persons. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to allow her access to the bank account of her deceased brother and furnish the information sought by her provided that she is able to prove and produce the certificate to the effect that she is the legal heir of her deceased brother."
I fail to understand how this ruling was ignored by the AA in the present case.
This apart, in the instant case, nobody has disputed the fact that Surendra Singh is the son of Ramji Singh Raghuvanshi. From the decision of CIC it is clear that the AA has refered the matter to the CPIO concerned twice before coming to a conclusion, which is by way of his detailed speaking order. Unfortunately we do not have any access to the comments of the CPIO and the detailed speaking order of the AA in this case.
But the IC who heard the case had access to all these records and has gone on record stating:
After going through the appellate decision I am fully convinced that the AA has taken a right decision of providing sufficient information to the appellant to establish his right as legal heir in claiming this amount or collecting this information.
In view of the above I feel that it may not be proper for us to jump to a conclusion of "connivance and unholy nexus" without having an opportunity to study the detailed speaking order of the AA.