Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

N. Saravanan vs State Bank Of India on 15 October, 2025

                                      केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/138465+
                                      CIC/SBIND/A/2024/138355

 N. Saravanan                                                    ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
 CPIO:
 State Bank of India,                                        ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
 Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

                                                                 SA      : 15.11.2024 &
 RTI : 25.06.2024                FA    : 31.07.2024
                                                                 16.11.2024
 CPIO : Not on record            FAO : Not on record             Hearing : 07.10.2025
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.

Date of Decision: 14.10.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI applications dated 25.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:

Required Information and Documents:

1) As per the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 57, read with Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Probate of Will is mandatory and applicable for Mumbai, Chennai or Kolkata Cities only.

As per the Letter received from SBI Ramanathapuram Branch Dated 08.01.2024, SBI Ramanathapuram Branch require Probate of Will. Among the rules Indian Succession Act, 1925, RBI Rules, SBI Rules related to Probate of Will,

a) Which rule is higher among the rules?

b) And which rule should be SBI followed ?

I humbly request you to provide the information.

2) As per the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 57, read with Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 Probate of Will is mandatory and applicable for Mumbai, Chennai or Kolkata Cities only.

Please confirm, Is Probate of Will mandatory for SBI Ramanathapuram Branch as per Indian Succession Act, 1925

3) As per the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 57, read with Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 Probate of Will is mandatory and applicable for Mumbai, Chennai or Kolkata Cities only.

Whether SBI Ramanathapuram Branch accepts and follows this legal provision (as per Indian Succession Act, 1925) I humbly request you to provide the information

4) The WILL written by father is not cancelled by him. Please refer the RTI Letter reply received from Kilakkarai SRO (Sl. No 01 / 2024 Dated 08.01.2024) and submitted already to SBI Ramanathapuram Branch. Whether SBI Ramanathapuram Branch accepts that Will written by my father is not cancelled by him.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2024. The FAA's order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.11.2024 & 16.11.2024.

4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Stanleyjones, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had not received any response to his RTI applications in either of the second appeals.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that it was not a case of non-response as claimed by the appellant in both the appeals. The CPIO relied upon their written submissions 06.10.2025, wherein they enclosed copies of the replies given by them in response to the RTI applications. The CPIO relied upon their initial reply dated 12.07.2024 given in response to both the RTI applications, extracted below:

"Reply to Query No.1 The request is in the nature of seeking opinion of CPIO and does not come under the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Reply to Query No.2. The request is in the nature of seeking opinion of CPIO and does not come under the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Reply to Query No.3. The request is in the nature of seeking opinion of CPIO and does not come under the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Reply to Query No.4. The request is in the nature of seeking opinion of CPIO and does not come under the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act."

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent has claimed to have timely replied to the RTI applications, contrary to the appellant's contention. Further, the CPIO has enclosed copies of their original reply given on 12.07.2024 and a copy of the said Page 3 of 4 submissions along with enclosures have been marked to the appellant. Besides, the nature of the information sought in the RTI applications is clarificatory, hence, cannot be addressed as per definition of "information" prescribed under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. That being so, no further action is warranted in the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 14.10.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO State Bank of India, CPIO, Regional Business Office-3, Karaikudi, No.- 22, Netaji Street, BSNL Building, 3rd Floor, Karaikudi, Tamilndadu-630001

2. N. Saravanan Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)