Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Central Information Commission

Mr. Ramesh Chandra vs State Bank Of Patiala on 14 July, 2008

           CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
              B-Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


                                                                        Appeal No.2414/ICPB/2008
                                                                                 F.No.PBC/07/407
                                                                                     July 14, 2008

                In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18
                            [Hearing on 3.7.2008 at 11.00 a.m.]

Appellant :            Mr. Ramesh Chandra

Public authority:      State Bank of Patiala
                       Mr. R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager & PIO

Present:               For Respondents:
                       Mr. R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager

                       Appellant not present.


FACTS:

The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated 9.6.2007 by enclosing the copy of the application fee which he has deposited along with his letter to the PIO, State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi requesting certain information regarding payment of certain drafts. The appellant did not receive any reply within 30 days and he preferred an appeal before the first AA on 18.07.2007. It appears both the CPIO and AA are sitting in the same building, viz., State Bank of Patiala at Shastri Bhawan. The appellant did not receive any reply to either of his applications. This has prompted him to file this appeal before the Commission on 9.10.2007. The Commission has called for comments on 3.12.2007 and no comments have come from State Bank of Patiala from Shastri Bhawan branch. The appellant has also written to the Commission vide letter dated 2.1.2008 that he has not received any comments from the State Bank of Patiala in order to file his rejoinder. The Commission has again reminded the CPIO vide letter dated 17.03.2008 with a direction that he should submit his comments within seven days. It was also brought to the notice of the Bank that in case if no comments are received action will be initiated under section 20(1) of RTI Act. Even after issuing reminders, the Commission has not received any reply, therefore, this case was listed for hearing on 3.7.2008, which was attended by Chief Manager. The appellant did not attend the hearing.

2. On the day of the hearing, Chief Manager has produced two letters dated 30.06.2008 and 1.7.2008 by which he has written to the appellant asking for more details regarding the drafts. Instead of sending comments, he has only forwarded this letter to 1 the Commission as his comments. The APIO has stated during the hearing he has not received any of the letters sent by the appellant nor the communication sent by the Commission. This is not acceptable to me. When an appellant could receive communication sent by the Commission, how the bank which is located in Shastri Bhawan has not received it is not acceptable. The appellant has also enclosed proof of submitting application fee along with the letter which itself shows there is sincerity on the part of the appellant that he has submitted application along with application fee. The Commission has also reminded on two occasions, there was no response, which itself shows there is no proper system of receiving letters in Shastri Bhawan Branch and this branch is not a very big branch in order to loose such kind of communication. Probably there is no proper system in receipt of letters in the Bank. Therefore, I direct the CPIO/DGM to go through the letters received in their office since the Commission has sent letters by Speed Post on 5.12.2007 and 20.3.2008 calling for comments of the CPIO. The PIO started working only when the case has been listed for hearing and he hurriedly obtained some copies of the complaint from the Commission and written to the appellant. I, therefore, direct the CPIO to show-cause why penalty cannot be imposed on him under section 20(1) of RTI Act. I also need to know from the AA, who is DGM regarding implementation of RTI Act in his office. I also direct him to file his reply before the Commission within 15 days in order to apprise how the letters received under RTI Act are being handled in State Bank of Patiala. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.

Sd/-

(Padma Balasubramanian) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy :

(Prem Singh Sagar) Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar Address of parties :
1. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Chief Manager & PIO, State Bank of Patiala, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. Mr. Ramesh Chandra, TGT S. St. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dhoom Manikpur, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, UP-203207 2