Central Information Commission
Shri I.D. Sen vs Syndicate Bank on 6 March, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00825-SM dated 13.09.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 06.03.2009
Appellant : Shri I.D. Sen
Respondent : Syndicate Bank
The Appellant along with Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, is present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Capt. S.K. Sharma, Chief Manager, is present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had written to the APIO in his letter dated 13 September 2007 seeking information on four counts. The CPIO, in his reply dated 22 October 2007, provided part of the information and denied the remaining on the ground that some of it did not amount to information at all within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, one item of information was available in the website of the Bank and one item of the information related to commercial confidence of third parties and was exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 13 November 2007. The first Appellate Authority decided the appeal in his order dated 8 December 2007. In his order, he provided full details of the charges levied by the Bank both for the DDs and for online transfer of funds between cities. He also held that the details about the loans advanced by that particular branch of the Bank and the number of certificate cases filed by the Bank for non-recovery could not be disclosed not only under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act but also under 8(1)(j) of the same Act. Not content with within this decision, the Appellant has approached us in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, we heard the submissions are both the sides. In addition to the oral submissions, the Respondent has also furnished written comments on the appeal and the Appellant has provided a rejoinder on the same. After hearing both the sides, we find that the CPIO had not been very careful in dealing with the request for information. We note for examploe that he had intimated a certain minimum prescribed charge for transfer of funds under the core banking scheme between cities whereas the first Appellate Authority in his order gave a different rate structure.
4. We do not agree with the CPIO that the applicant's request for information as in paragraph 2 of his application would not amount to information within the meaning of the term as defined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Finally, we do not agree either with the CPIO or with the first Appellate Authority that the information with regard to the cumulative figures of the number of borrowers and the amount of loan advanced to them or the number of borrowers against whom certificate cases have been pending could be denied under Section 8(1)(d) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. It is to be noted that the Appellant had not asked for individual loan details which obviously cannot be disclosed. What he had asked for was only cumulative and aggregate number of borrowers and the amount of loan advanced to them and the number against whom certificate cases have been instituted.
5. In view of the above, we direct the CPIO to provide within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the correct information to the Appellant on all counts, namely, (i) about the charges levied by the Bank on transfer of funds from one core banking branch to another, (ii) the practice prevalent in the respective branch of the Bank for extending core banking facility to a customer, (iii) the total number of borrowers during the period of two years preceding the date of application and (iv) the number of borrowers against whom certificates cases have been instituted by the Bank. We also direct him to explain within the same period of 10 working days as to why penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act should not be initiated against him for having provided incomplete and inadequate information to the Appellant. If we do not receive his reply within the stipulated period, we will proceed ex parte.
6. We find that the CPIO had provided the information in English while the Appellant had applied in Hindi. Hindi being the official language adopted under the Constitution of India, the offices of the government located in Hindi speaking areas have to correspond with the citizens in Hindi. We would like to advise the Bank to instruct the CPIOs in the Hindi speaking states to provide information in Hindi if the request is received in that language.
7. With the above directions and observations, we dispose off this appeal.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(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