Ravishankar Kumar Akela vs State Bank Of India on 25 November, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 46]

Central Information Commission

Ravishankar Kumar Akela vs State Bank Of India on 25 November, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 20.09.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 20.06.2018 and first appeal dated 13.08.2018:-

िदनां क २६.०४.२०१७ को पटना रे ल थाना (GRP) कां ड सं ा १३८/१७ के अनुसंधानकता% पदािधकारी या अ( पुिलस पदािधकारी आपके शाखा या LCPC म/ खाता सं ा ####३६०४ के स1भ% म/ आये थ/ िक नहीं ? िकस-िकस ितिथ एवं समय को कौन-कौन Page 1 of 4 पदािधकारी आयेथ/? अगरआयेथ/ तो उनके ;ारा िदया गया आवेदन प< िक स=ी >ितिलिप उपल? कराय/ I

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.06.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply to the RTI application. Dissatisfied with non-response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.08.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 20.09.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 20.09.2018 inter alia on the grounds that no reply was given by the CPIO as well as the FAA. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information immediately.

4. Perusal of the documents submitted by the appellant reveals that the CPIO and the FAA did not reply to the RTI application as well as the first appeal.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Navin Kumar, AGM and CPIO, State Bank of India, Patna, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sent his RTI application to the Branch Manager SBI, By-pass Road Khemnichack Branch, Patna instead of the CPIO, LCPC, Patna. Similarly, the first was sent to State Bank of India, Main Branch, Gandhi Maidan Patna, whereas the FAA in this case was General Manager Network-l, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna. Hence, they could not respond to the RTI application as well as the first appeal. They further submitted that the appellant sought information as to whether the Investigating Agency or any police officer had visited LCPC Patna for investigation of account no.

XXXXXXXX604. The appellant also wanted to know about the request letter received by LCPC Patna from investigating agency or police officer for visiting their office regarding investigation of the aforesaid case. They informed that aforesaid account was Page 2 of 4 maintained by Kijaraisarai Branch, Gaya Bihar hence, any Investigating agency or Police Officer had to visit Kijarisarai Branch for seeking any information regarding the account in question. They contended that they were only the custodian of account opening form on behalf of their SBI branches. They further informed that if the account opening form was needed for investigation, they provide only soft copy of account opening form to the concerned branch on their specific request. They also clarified that neither any Investigating Agency nor any police officer had contacted them in this regard and they had not received any request letter for information of the aforesaid account.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the RTI application and first appeal was not sent at the proper addresses, hence, the same was not received by the respondent and accordingly they had not replied to the appellant. Further, it is noted that after receiving the hearing notice from the Commission the respondent had obtained copies of the RTI application and the first appeal from the Commission. However, no reply was given by the respondent as on the date of hearing. Hence, the respondent is directed to provide proper reply/information to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 23.11.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA (LCPC) Sita Palace, New Bye Pass Road, Khemnichak, Hanuman Nagar, Patna - 800026 The F.A.A, General Manager (NW-1), State Bank of India, 5th Floor, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Ravishankar Kumar Akela Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission