Central Information Commission
Shri Ashok Kumar Kapoor vs State Bank Of India on 10 February, 2010
Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/C/2009/000790 & CIC/SM/A/2009/001073
dated 05-01-2009
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 10 February 2010
Name of the Appellant / : Shri Ashok Kumar Kapoor Complainant S/o Shri Harbans Lal Kapoor, F-33, Kitchllu Nagar, Ludhiana.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India, Corporate Central Office, 4th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai.
The Appellant/Complainant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Panikumar, CPIO,
(ii) Shri Ajit, Law Officer
The same person has filed a complaint and an appeal on identical matters and, therefore, we have clubbed both the cases together for hearing. The brief facts are as under.
2. The Appellant/Complainant had requested the CPIO on 5 January 2009 for a number of information regarding the selection of Law Officers in 1991. The CPIO, in his reply dated 19 March 2009, provided some information while denying some others under the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, he had preferred an appeal on 12 February 2009. It is reported that the Appellate Authority had disposed of his appeal in his order dated 23 September 2009, although a copy of that order has not been provided along with the second appeal. Claiming that the information sought is yet to be provided to him to his satisfaction, he has come before the Central Information Commission both in a second appeal also in a complaint.
CIC/SM/C/2009/000790 & CIC/SM/A/2009/001073
3. We heard these cases through videoconferencing. The Appellant/Complainant was present in the Ludhiana Studio of NIC whereas the Respondents were present in the Mumbai Studio. We heard their submissions. It appears that there is some discrepancy between the dates of the various applications which the Appellant/Complainant had enclosed in his appeal memo to this Commission and those he had originally sent to the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. Be that as it may, the main information that he has sought include the guidelines which the Bank might have issued to the Selection Committee and the recommendations of the Selection Committee made. The other details sought by him relates to the personal details of the candidates who had considered for selection and the CPIO was right in not providing those details to him claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, the CPIO's response in regard to the guidelines issued to the Selection Committee and the recommendations of the Selection Commission is not clear enough and needs to be restated with greater clarity.
4. Therefore, we now direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order very categorical and clear information on whether any guidelines had been issued to the Selection Committee for selecting the Law Officers in 1991 and also provide the copy of the recommendation of the said Selection Committee. In case, any of these information is not available, the records having been destroyed or for any other reason, the CPIO shall clearly state so in his reply.
5. It is also noted that while the original application was made on 5 January 2009, the CPIO had responded only on 19 March 2009, that is, nearly 5 to 6 weeks later. This renders the CPIO liable for imposition of penalty as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, before deciding on the penalty, we would like to have the written explanation of the CPIO in this regard. He is directed to send the explanation within 15 working days from the receipt of this order failing which we will decide on the penalty ex-parte.
CIC/SM/C/2009/000790 & CIC/SM/A/2009/001073
6. We also note that the first Appellate Authority had passed his orders on the appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant much beyond the stipulated period. This is absolutely irregular and the first Appellate Authority is expected to adhere to the time lines stipulated in the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
7. Both the cases are thus disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/C/2009/000790 & CIC/SM/A/2009/001073