Central Information Commission
Rupak Roy Choudhury vs State Bank Of India on 18 December, 2025
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/648125
Rupak Roy Choudhury ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
State Bank of India, ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Distt-Uttar Dinjapur,
West Bengal
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17.08.2024 FA : 19.09.2024 SA : 31.10.2024
CPIO : 10.09.2024 FAO : 17.10.2024 Hearing : 10.12.2025
Date of Decision: 17.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"I am the Settlor of the Bharati Institute of Technology & Management Development Trust. The Trust was established with a registered deed (no. 0040 dated 03.07.2008) and it has two appointed trustees, namely, 1. Sri. Ritesh Roy Choudhury, and 2. Smt. Piyali Choudhury, both are residents of B.T Park, P.S- Balurghat, Dist.- Dakshin Dinajpur. We approached the State Bank of India, Page 1 of 5 Ragunathpur Branch (Branch Code-16774, IFSC codeSBIN0016774) for opening a Deposit Account in the name of our Trust.
Point C
(i) Please explain--- Why bank has made Mode of Operation in CBS "OTHER"
along with meaning of the term Other and name of staff with designation & employee no who had done this? as per Point No. E, in Account opening form mode of operation was not mentioned at the time of account opening and it is left blank.
ii) If bank goes by Trust deed, it is clearly mentioned in Point No- A that any one of the trustees is entitled to operate banking transactions with his/her single signature but the bank allowed the settlor to open the account single handedly with single signature only to grow bank's business, increase deposit figure and to fulfil deposit target and later at the time of beneficial requirement of fund bank denied the settlor to close the account. Moreover, as per Banking law if trust deed is silent for Banking operation then all trustees have to operate the account jointly but the Account was opened by taking single signature of the Settlor-- Please explain as per banking rule and RBI guideline that why did the not allow the settlor to close the account (Please provide name/designation/ employee id of the staff/officer who did not allow to close the account)? and what is procedure for closure of TDR account no- 40180026433 opened by the settlor with his single signature?
Point I
i) Please provide soft copy of both request letters submitted by Mrs. Piyali Choudhury for marking account hold and unfold.
ii) Please explain the reason as per banking law and RBI guideline why did the bank accept request letter of Mrs. Piyali for marking the account hold and untold Page 2 of 5 as the account was opened with the single sing of the settlor and further Mrs. Choudhury had already given resignation? and mention the name of the staff/officer with designation and employee no.
Point G
i) Please explain-- Why did the bank allow new appointed trustee Mr. Bijay Chanda to withdraw Rs.12,000/- 18.05.2024 from A/c no- 33378521893 vide Cheque No-706552? and provide copy of cheque (Cheque No- 706552) through which payment has been made along with passing officer/staff name designation and employee no.
ii) Please explain--- Currently why is not bank allowing new appointed trustee Mr. Bijay Chanda to withdraw?"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point C
i) information is exempted under Sector 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 as - (j) information which relates to personal information disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
ii) we must advise that, once the dispute was raised and received by Bank, further operation could not be permitted as raising of dispute among trustees resulted in revocation of existing mandate.
Point I
i) information is exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005 as - (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual Page 3 of 5 property, the disclosure of which would hard the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
ii) our reply is the same as in query No. C (ii).
Point G
i) our reply is the same as in query No. I (i).
ii) our reply same as in query No. C (ii)."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.10.2024 replied as under:
"On perusal of the RTI application and reply provided by the CPIO and Regional Manager RBO-V Siliguri dated 10.09.2024, it is observed that the CPIO has not provided complete reply to the query/ information sought by the applicant. Therefore, after applying free and fair mind, I partly uphold the Appeal and order the CPIO to furnish a revised reply on merits in response to point number C (i), C(ii) and I (i) of RTI application.
In response to information sought by the applicant in the aforesaid queries, however, with regard to name of the staff with designation & employee number, the CPIO has rightly declined to furnish information claiming exemption u/s 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act. The reply of the CPIO in not informing the details of staff is in order as the same is in nature of personal information, hence exempted from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Rest of the response of the CPIO is in order."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 31.10.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Kumar Gaurav, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 4 of 56. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed their initial reply dated 10.09.2024 and apprised the Commission about the appellant's communication dated 08.12.2025 through which he has expressed his satisfaction upon resolution of his underlying grievance reflected in his RTI application.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that adequate information has been furnished by the respondent, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, perusal of records reveals that the appellant vide communication dated 08.12.2025 has requested for withdrawal of his second appeal & the same is taken on record. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 17.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखरियाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, State Bank of India, RM & CPIO, Regional Business Office-5, Siliguri (Raiganj), SBI Building, Po-Karnajora, Raiganj, Distt-Uttar Dinjapur, W. B. -733130
2. Rupak Roy Choudhury Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)