Central Information Commission
Mrabha Agarwal vs State Bank Of India on 18 April, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001877
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001878
Appellant : Smt. Abha Agarwal, Allahabad.
Public Authority : State Bank of India, Allahabad/New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 30th March, 2016
Date of Decision : 18th April, 2016
Present
Appellant : Not Present
Respondents : Shri S.K. Pandeya, AGM & FAA, Shri Ram
Lakhan Shukla, Assistant General Manager
& CPIO and Shri H.C. Manchanda, Deputy
Manager
ORDER
1. The Commission heard the above two appeals filed by Smt. Abha Agarwal on 30.03.2015. Both the appeals relate to her RTI application dated 26.06.2015. The appellant vide her letter dated 10.03.2016 expressed her inability to attend the hearing and requested the Commission to consider her appeals on merit. During the hearing the respondents stated that M/s Yamuna Fan Industries a partnership firm with Shri Achal Agrawal s/o Late Ripu Daman Agrawal & Smt. Abha Agrawal w/o Shri Rajeev Agrawal as partners, both R/O 268/4 Mahewa Purab Patti Allahabad. The DRT issued Debt Recovery Certificate no 209/2000 to the Recovery Officer for further action. The borrowers moved application for setting aside the decree in 2001 but Recovery Officer decided to attach the property in July 2002. The borrowers moved the Hon'ble High Court several times for relief but the petitions were dismissed. The appellant, Smt. Abha Agarwal is submitting RTI applications on various dates seeking various information repeatedly under RTI Act and is trying to disrupt the recovery proceedings initiated against her on one pretext or the other. The inflow of RTI 1 applications is still continuing. The borrowers and the guarantors had made RTI as a tool to waste the valuable time of the Bank officials as also the other authorities.
2. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 26.06.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad. In this application, the appellant referred to the Commission's order dated 09.06.2015 in another Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/002058 of her, whereby the Commission had directed the CPIO to "give a clear reply along with the account statement (of M/s Yamuna Fan Industries) as available to the appellant." In this context, the appellant through instant RTI application dated 26.06.2015 sought following information: i) provide copy of account statement of M/s Yamuna Fan Industries after obtaining it from DRT; and ii) name & designation of the officer responsible for causing delay in providing desired information pursuant to the order dated 09.06.2015 of the Commission in Appeal No. CICMP/A/2015/002058.
3. The CPIO replied to the appellant's RTI vide letter dated 12.08.2015. As for point No. 1 of RTI application, the CPIO expressed his inability to provide the requisite information to the appellant on the ground that the same was not available with the branch concerned being very old. He advised the appellant to obtain the information from the DRT as she herself was a party to the civil suit. As for point No. 2, CPIO stated that due to non-availability of records, no officer could be held responsible for not providing the information. Dissatisfied with the reply of CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal dated 16.08.2015 before First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 14.09.2015 upheld the CPIO's reply.
4. The appellant then filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 03.10.2015 on the ground that desired information was not provided by the respondents. She requested the Commission to penalise the CPIO and FAA for 2 acting in contravention of the provisions of RTI Act and sought compensation for the delay.
5. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents, while maintaining their stand that information (i.e. account statement of M/s Yamuna Fan Industries) sought by the appellant was not available in their record, stated that it was possible that the same might be available with the DRT as they had filed it before the latter during the proceedings of the civil suit. They also reiterated their response with regard to point No. 2 of the appellant's RTI application. They also denied the allegations leveled by the appellant in the present appeal and submitted that the appellant's RTI application was received on 14.07.2015 and was replied to by CPIO on 12.08.2015 that is well within the time limit stipulated under the RTI Act.
6. The Commission accepts the respondents' submission and holds that the factual information/reply had been provided to the appellant in response to her RTI application. The decision of the respondents is upheld. The Appellant, should she so wish, may obtain the requisite information (i.e. account statement of M/s Yamuna Fan Industries) from the DRT under the prescribed procedure. The appeals are disposed of.
7. Before parting with these appeals, the Commission would like to observe that the appellant, Smt. Abha Agarwal submitted RTI applications on various dates seeking various information repeatedly under RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay had observed that "The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of 3 the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
8. The Commission advises the appellant to use the rights available to her under the RTI Act with full responsibility in future so as not to overburden the public authority with frivolous and vexatious RTI applications which impinge on the scarce resources of the public authority so as to enable the public authority to use its time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Address of the parties:
Smt. Abha Agarwal 268/4, Rewa Road, Mahewa, Allahabad-211007.
The Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 4, Kutchery Road, 1st Floor, Allahabad-211002.
The GM (SAMRO-North)/FAA State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Group (SAMG), Local Head Office complex, 2nd Floor, 'A' Block, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.4