Central Information Commission
S Ramalingam vs State Bank Of India on 16 May, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/109354
S Ramalingam ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India
Secunderabad ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 14.02.2019 FA : 22.03.2019 SA : 24.02.2023
CPIO : 11.03.2019 FAO : 24.04.2019 Hearing : 14.05.2024
Date of Decision: 15.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2019 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Today i.e. 14/2/19 at 11.:46 AM I have visited your Bank at counter No.4, you have displayed a board stating that "NON HOME BRANCH CLEARING CHEQUES NOT ALLOWED ONLY HOME BRANCH CHEQUES ALLOWED"
May I know the provisions of Act for the display of the above clause for cheque clearances. Furnish the same under R.T.I Act.Page 1 of 3
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.03.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Barkatpura is a business centre and people from all over the state and outside come there and deposit cheques. Inspite of our repeated efforts we find that a number of cheques get deposited with incorrect/ incomplete account numbers/ personal information. Many of these slips do not contain the contact numbers of the account holder, which makes it difficult for the branch to contact them to rectify the mistakes, or to return the cheques."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.03.2019 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.04.2019 directed the CPIO to re-examine the application.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.02.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Ravi Shankar, Regional Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that false information has been furnished to him. Moreover, no provision or rule has been quoted by the respondent as sought in the RTI application.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the board containing the content mentioned by the Appellant in the RTI application was removed immediately from all the branch offices as per the instructions of the bank.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, directs the Respondent to furnish a revised reply regarding the provision available in the act, if any, to the Appellate within 10 days from Page 2 of 3 the receipt of this order, under intimation to the commission. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 15.05.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO State Bank of India, RBO-IV, Himayathnagar, Administrative Office-II, Secunderabad, Near Patny Circle, R.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500003.
2. S Ramalingam Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)