Central Information Commission
Mr.Nirod Kumar Patra vs State Bank Of India on 1 May, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000224/02981
Appeal No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000224
Dated: 152013
Appellant: Shri Nirod Kumar Patra
AtNandikhandisahi, PO/PS
Phulbani, Distt. Kandhamal762001.
(Odisha).
Respondent: Public Information Officer
State Bank of India
RBO, Phulbani762001
Kandhamal (Odisha).
Date of Hearing: 152013.
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 28112011 seeking information on an advertisement for hiring of generators and other related issues.
2. The CPIO responded on 30122011, providing a copy of the advertisement to the appellant and denying other information under sections 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 222012. The FAA responded on 1622012 and directed the CPIO to provide information on items (b), (c) and
(d) of the RTI application and rejected items (e) and (f) under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The appellant approached the Commission on 2352012 in second appeal.
Hearing:
3. I heard both the parties through videoconferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application and enumerate the 6 points raised in the RTI application. He stated that he has received only partial information and that the remaining information should also be provided to him which pertained to the particulars of the applicants who had responded to an advertisement for installation of a generator set.
5. The respondent stated that the information was provided about the advertisement and the consolidated numbers of successful candidates and those who were rejected.
However, the particulars of the applicants and the photocopies of the applications were denied under the exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act particularly section 8(1)
(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent also said that there were two questions posed that sought responses in the form of answers, which did not qualify as information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
6. It was stated by the respondent that the appellant was one of the bidders whose quotation was not accepted. It was stated that the bid of the appellant was higher than the other bidders. In these circumstances and keeping in view the future biddings, the bank had decided not to disclose any information in the interest of maintaining competitiveness.
7. The response of the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.
Decision:
8. No further action in the matter is required at the level of the Commision.
Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.
(V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer /pcs/