Central Information Commission
Arun Kumar Srivastava vs State Bank Of India on 18 October, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/102959
Arun Kumar Srivastava ... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, State Bank of India ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Main Branch (SARB), Phoolbagh,
Kanpur, U.P.
ORDER
1. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the CPIO, SBI SARB, Zonal Office, The Mall, Kanpur- 208001, on 20.07.2018, in compliance with the Commission's order No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/102959, dated 02.05.2018, wherein the Commission has observed that no reply in response to the RTI application dated 18.10.2016 was furnished to the complainant by the respondent organization. The CPIO was directed to explain as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
Hearing:
2. The respondents Shri Ajay Kapoor, CPIO & AGM, SBI Retail Assets Central Processing Centre and Shri Sanjay Kalra, AGM, Stressed Assets and Resolution Branch (SARB), Administrative Office Building, The Mall, Kanpur attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
3. The respondent submitted that the loan of the complainant was sanctioned at the erstwhile Kahoo Kothi Branch in 2003 which was merged with Halsey Road Branch, Kanpur. However, the title deed of the complainant's property was misplaced in the Branch during the process of merger. Further, the Home Loan account of the complainant was declared NPA and transferred to SARB Kanpur for recovery which was further assigned to ARCIL Co. Ltd. In the meanwhile, the Bank was consistently pursuing the matter to trace the original title deed of the complainant but, the same was not traceable. In view of this, SARB Kanpur obtained a certified copy of the title deed on 29.09.2016 from the O/o Sub- Registrar and the same was provided to the complainant through SARB on 30.05.2017 after due diligence and publication of notice dated 08.04.2017 in respect of the lost title deed in Amar Ujala Newspaper. Hence, the complainant's grievance had been resolved. The respondent further submitted that the complainant's RTI application dated 18.10.2016 was received in SARB on
19.10.2016. However, since the title deeds were kept with RACPC Branch, the RTI application was forwarded to the CPIO, RACPC Branch on 13.11.2016 for providing information/document to the complainant. Subsequently, the CPIO, SBI RACPC Branch, Kanpur furnished a reply dated 16.11.2016 to the CPIO, SARB informing that the title deed has not been received by them. The respondent, however, admitted that due to oversight, the said reply was not provided to the complainant as the CPIOs were under the impression that information has been furnished to the complainant. Hence, the information sought for could not be furnished to the complainant. However, there was no deliberate or mala fide intention on the part of the CPIO to delay or withhold information. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same.
Decision:
4. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that the CPIO, SBI RACPC Branch had furnished a reply dated 16.11.2016 to the CPIO, SARB Kanpur in response to the complainant's RTI application as he was under the mistaken impression that information would be furnished by the CPIO, SARB Kanpur. In fact, the CPIO, SARB Kanpur vide letter dated 13.11.2016 had advised the CPIO, RACPC Branch to furnish the information sought for to the complainant directly. Hence, information could not be furnished to the complainant owing to lack of coordination/communication between the two offices. Further, the delay in provision of the document/information to the complainant was due to inability of the Branches to trace the title deed of the complainant despite their best efforts. In view of this, the Commission agrees with the respondent that there was no conscious or deliberate attempt to withhold the information sought by the complainant. Thus, it cannot be said that information was malafidely withheld by the respondent. Hence, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the respondent. In view of this, the Show Cause Notice issued to the CPIO, SBI SARB, Zonal Office, The Mall, Kanpur is hereby dropped.
5. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 16.10.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, Block No. 5, Administrative Office Building, The Mall, Kanpur, U.P.- 208001.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, SAR Branch, Zonal Office, The Mall, Kanpur- 208001.
3. Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava,