Central Information Commission
Bishamber Dayal Yadav vs State Bank Of India on 4 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/113741
Bishamber Dayal Yadav ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL
BUSINESS OFFICE, REGION - III, SBA
CAMPUS I, SEC 8, PLOT NO. 79,
NEAR IFFCO CHOWK, GURGAON. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/08/2023
Date of Decision : 02/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 09/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 17/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 15/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2021 seeking the following information:1
"I visited your Dundahera branch on 26/08/21 for closing my RD (MWS) A/c
-15 and saw chief manager requesting her, standing in her chamber for about one hour, who didn't offer me (66 years senior citizen, retired officer, SBI high net worth customer and SBI shareholder/OWNER) seat/water/tea. So, give me monthly details of branch entertainment experience since 01/04/22 till date.
CCTV footage dt 26/08/21 of CM chamber as well as banking hall as proof of my statement to submit it in annual general meeting of SBI shareholder. I am asking bank to close my above RD MWS account for the last 5 years, now I has submitted my pay slip for the month of Oct 98 showing deduction of Rs. 30(MWS) Deduction, which was asked by Dundehera Branch, yet my account hasn't been closed/balance transferred to my c/a account. State reasons/objections.
State probable period required for closing a/c• as per RBI customer service committee report.
Whether SBLC impart training in human behavioral science to its official Sid whether Branch CM Manisha has attended such programmes.
Whether Br CM is public servant and shareholders of the SBI are owner or not. State how to behave by a servant to owner of bank as per banks instructions."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.11.2021 stating as under:
"The information sought by the Applicant under point nos. 1 to 6 referred in the RTI email, is related to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and it does not satisfy and justify the larger interest, therefore, the information sought is exempted from disclosure of information under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2021. FAA's order, dated 15.12.2021, held as under:
"The CPIO is instructed to reply the queries sought under point no. 3 and 4 and again within 10 days of receipt of this order.2
The reply given by CPIO in respect of information sought on other point is correct and hence upheld.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Not Present.
Decision:
The Commission, after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant had sought information related to his account and other related issues. But the Respondent has wrongly invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in denying the information. However, the FAA vide its order dated 15.12.2021 had directed the CPIO to give revised reply to the Appellant on point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application. But there is nothing on record which shows that the CPIO has given revised reply to the Appellant.
The Commission further observes that some queries of the appellant are more in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice/clarification from the CPIO and he has expected that the CPIO should interpret his query and then provide information to the appellant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
In light of the above observations, the Commission directs the Respondent to re- examine the RTI application of the Appellant and give revised point-wise reply/information, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.3
Since, the Appellant has a grievance related to his account, etc., therefore, in the interest of justice and on humanitarian grounds, the Commission directs the Respondent to facilitate a meeting with the Appellant in their office on a mutually convenient time and date and effort should be made to redress the grievance of the Appellant in a time bound manner.
Nonetheless, since the CPIO remained absent during the hearing proceedings to present their case, the CPIO is directed to send a proper written explanation for disregarding the Commission's notice of hearing by not appearing before the bench. The said written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission within 7 days of the receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4