Central Information Commission
Mr.Narendra Kumar Raychoudhury vs State Bank Of India on 24 October, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No.4, Club Building,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067.
Tel No: 011 26106140
Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001741/05235
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001741
Dated: 24.10.2013
Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Raychoudhury
S/o Late Syamaghana Raychoudhury
Water Works Road, PS Sea Beach
P.O./District Puri752002
Orissa
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
State Bank of India
Regional Business Office
RegionI, Unit -I
Near Capital Police Station
Bhubaneswar751001
Date of Hearing: 24.10.2013
ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 20.01.2012 under the RTI Act, seeking information regarding the details of the depositor of some transactions mentioned in the RTI application. CPIO responded on 29.02.2012 informing about the non availability of the information. Appellant filed first appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 19.02.2012. Copy of the FAA's order is not enclosed. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 04.12.2012.
Hearing
2. Appellant was present before the Commission. Respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
3. Appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he was seeking information regarding the details of depositor of some transaction mentioned in the RTI application.
4. Appellant stated that his main focus was that he wanted to know who had deposited the amount in the current account of the partnership firm maintained with the respondent's organization for the transactions mentioned in his RTI application.
5. Appellant stated that the information sought by him pertained to the current account of a partnership firm where his late father was a partner.
6. Appellant stated that if the records had been destroyed, then on what basis the bank filed a recovery suit against the partnership firm. Appellant stated that he was impleaded as party as legal heir of the deceased partner in that case and it was decreed in favour of the bank. Appellant stated that he sought the information to defend himself in the case.
7. Respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was of 1986 and 1987. Respondent stated that as per the record retention policy, the records pertaining to 1986 and 1987 were destroyed on 10.05.2003.
8. Respondent stated that the recovery suit was filed based on the statements of account. Respondent stated that the details of depositor pertaining to the transactions was recorded in the voucher. Respondent stated that since the voucher was not available with the bank, they were unable to provide the information sought by the appellant.
9. The CPIO's reply of 29.02.2012 is cryptic and needs to be substantiate.
Decision
10. Respondent is directed to provide to the appellant whatever information is available and also to submit an affidavit to the Commission, stating the position regarding the availability of the records. Compliance must be done within 30 days of this order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(V.K. Sharma) DO & Deputy Registrar