Gopal Kumar Jha vs State Bank Of India on 20 May, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Gopal Kumar Jha vs State Bank Of India on 20 May, 2019

1. The issue under consideration i.e. the relief sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 17.09.2017 due to alleged non-supply of information (vide his RTI application dated 05.05.2017) is as under :

Take stern action against the CPIO-CUM-AGM, RACPC, SBI West Gandhi Maidan, Patna for refusing the RTI application and also direct the CPIO to provide the information.

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.05.2017, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the CPIO, State Bank of India, RACPC Branch, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna seeking inter alia the following information:-

(i) Give monthly chart EMI chart of EMI from September 2012 to May 2017 in the following format.

               Month                  Year               EMI                O/s Overdue

     (ii)      Had bank given EMI chart to me?

     (iii)     If yes then give date on which bank had sent above EMI chart including

name and designation of officer who signed on above chart including copy of chart.

(iv) The complainant had given a request to obtain NOC so also provide action taken report on that request.

(v) The complainant had sent a CIBIL report to the bank on 5th May 2017.

What is the amount of EMI on that CIBIL report.

(vi) Who have submitted above CIBIL report regarding amount of EM. If the respondent office had submitted then provide name and designation of person who prepared above CIBIL report.

(vii) Information submitted by bank in above CIBIL report is correct or incorrect.

The CPIO did not reply to the RTI application. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed complaint dated 17.09.2017, before this Commission.

Page 2 of 4

3. The Complainant has filed a complaint dated 17.09.2017 inter alia on the ground that the CPIO had refused to accept the RTI application. The Complainant also stated that the CPIO did not receive RTI application directly in branch. Name of CPIO was also not displayed in the branch so it was very difficult to submit application in the said branch of SBI.

4. The CPIO did not reply to the RTI application.

5. The complainant and the respondent Mr. N.K. Sinha, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Patna attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.1. The Complainant submitted that no reply has been given by the respondent till date. He alleged that his RTI application has been refused by the respondent bank.

5.2. The Respondent submitted that they have responded to the RTI application vide letter dated 27.06.2017. They added that no first appeal was filed by the complainant before the First Appellate Authority, hence they considered that the complainant was satisfied with the information.

5.3. The following reply/information was given to the appellant vide CPIO's letter dated 27.6.2017:

"1. No monthly chart is provided. EMI is duly mentioned in the arrangement letter provided at the time of documentation. It is clearly mentioned there that the EMI mentioned thereat will be applicable only when full interest amount is repaid during the course period & moratorium, otherwise the EMI will be reset after adding the interest amount.

2. Same as above point (1)

3. Same as above point (1) Page 3 of 4

4. NOC is provided only after full repayment of the loan. As your loan has not been fully repaid by you, NOC is not issued.

5. EMI mentioned in the CIBIL has nothing to do, Banks provide EMI through arrangement letter.

6. CIBIL data is extracted from the system itself.

7. No separate date is provided to CIBIL by the Bank."

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, feels that due reply has already been given by the respondent. The complaint is also unwarranted. The complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands as he has concealed the fact that reply has already been given by the CPIO. He has failed to approach the first appellate authority before filing complaint before the Commission. The Commission feels that interest of justice will be served if the complaint is dismissed. The Complainant has trivialised the RTI mechanism envisaged under the RTI Act. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties Sd/-

Suresh Chandra (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 20.05.2019 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission