Central Information Commission
Shiv Narayan Ray vs State Bank Of India on 18 July, 2024
सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/613565
CIC/SBIND/A/2023/613556
CIC/SBIND/A/2023/613548
Shiv Narayan Ray ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Jharkhand ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of FA Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO First Order Second
No. Application reply Appeal Appeal
1 613565 25.10.2022 22.11.2022 25.11.2022 15.12.2022 14.03.2023
2 613556 23.10.2022 22.11.2022 25.11.2022 17.12.2022 14.03.2023
3 613548 25.10.2022 22.11.2022 25.11.2022 15.12.2022 14.03.2023
Note: The above referred matters have been clubbed for decision as these are
premised on RTI Application(s) relating to the same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 11.07.2024
Date of Decision: 16.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/613565 Page 1 of 7
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide certified copies of all three cheque - slips in which cheque holder has filled the three cheque -slips and presented to the branch for encashment in respect of three cheques against which Rs. 590/- have been deducted on 20/05/2022 in respect of CHQ STOP CHGS for each cheque with A/c No. 32******208, Customer Id No. - 86583452, Account Type - Savings Account, Opening Date - 18/01/2013, State Bank of India, Branch-Rajdhanwar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand of the applicant."
1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1. Cheque no. 551329 dated 02.07.2019 of Rs. 40,000/- paid to Rajesh Kumar Santhalia.
2. Cheque no. 551335 dated 05.10.2021 of Rs. 50,000/- paid to Rajesh Kumar Santhalia.
3. Cheque no. 551336 dated 07.102022 of Rs. 50,000/- paid to Rajesh Kumar Santhalia.
4. Rs. 590 charged for cheque no 551377 returned on 29.04.2022 & again Rs. 590/- charged for cheque no. 38976288 stopped."
1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 15.12.2022 held as under:
"The appellant, through his RTI application, had sought information regarding certified copy of return memos of all the three cheques, for which cheque stop charges of Rs.590/- (Five Hundred Ninety Only) had been deducted thrice from his account.
The Central Public Information Officer has provided an online reply to the appellant. However, it is observed that complete information has not been provided to the appellant in respect of whom the information was sought by the appellant.Page 2 of 7
In view of the above, the Central Public Information Officer is directed to provide the information to the appellant within ten working days of the receipt of the order or inform accordingly.
1.3 Aggrieved with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.03.2023. Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/613556
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Kindly provide certified copy of documents in respect of details of cheque number encashed on 02/07/2019 of Rs. 40,000/ with A/c No. 32******208, Customer Id No. - 86583452, Account Type - Savings Account, Opening Date -
18/01/2013, State Bank of India, Branch Rajdhanwar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand of the applicant.
(ii) Kindly provide a certified copy of documents in respect of details of cheque number encashed on 05/10/2021 of Rs. 40,000/ with A/c No. 32******208, Customer Id No. - 86583452, Account Type - Savings Account, Opening Date - 18/01/2013, State Bank of India, Branch Rajdhanwar, District-Giridih, Jharkhand of the applicant.
(iii) Kindly provide a certified copy of documents in respect of details of cheque number encashed on 07/10/2021 of Rs. 50,000/- with A/c No. 32******208, Customer Id No. - 86583452, Account Type - Savings Account, Opening Date - 18/01/2013, State Bank of India, Branch Rajdhanwar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand of the applicant.
(iv) Kindly provide a certified copy of documents in respect of details of cheque number against which Rs. 590/- has been deducted on 29/04/2022 in respect of CHQ RET CHARGES with A/c No. 32******208, Customer Id No. - 86583452, Account Type - Savings Account, Opening Date - 18/01/2013, State Bank of India, Branch- Rajdhanwar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand of the applicant.
Page 3 of 7(v) Kindly provide a certified copy of documents in respect of details of three cheque numbers against which Rs. 590/- have been deducted on 20/05/2022 in respect of CHQ STOP CHGS for each cheque with A/c No. 32******208, Customer Id No. - 86583452, Account Type - Savings Account, Opening Date - 18/01/2013, State Bank of India, Branch -Rajdhanwar, District-Giridih, Jharkhand of the applicant."
2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1. Cheque no. 551329 dated 02.07.2019 of Rs. 40,000/- paid to Rajesh Kumar Santhalia.
2. Cheque no. 551335 dated 05.10.2021 of Rs. 50,000/- paid to Rajesh Kumar Santhalia.
3. Cheque no. 551336 dated 07.102022 of Rs. 50,000/- paid to Rajesh Kumar Santhalia.
4. Rs. 590 charged for cheque no 551377 returned on 29.04.2022 & again Rs. 590/- charged for cheque no. 38976288 stopped."
2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 17.12.2022 held as under:
"The appellant through his application given under Right to Information had sought the photocopies of three cheques debited from his account and the authorization letter for cheque stop, as well as the memo of cheque return made in the account.
The CPIO has provided online reply to the Appellant but the copies of paid cheques, authorization letter in respect of cheque stop and cheque return memo has not been provided.
In view of the above, the Central Public Information Officer is directed to provide photocopies of paid cheques, authorization letter for cheque stop, information relating to returned cheque to the appellant within ten working days of the receipt of the order or inform accordingly."
2.3 Aggrieved with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.03.2023.
Page 4 of 7Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/613548
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide certified copies of all three cheque return memos in respect of three cheques against which Rs. 590/- have been deducted on 20/05/2022 in respect of CHQ STOP CHGS for each cheque with A/c No. 32******208, Customer Id No. - 86583452, Account Type - Savings Account, Opening Date - 18/01/2013, State Bank of India, Branch- Rajdhanwar, District-Giridih, Jharkhand of the applicant."
3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1. Cheque no. 551329 dated 02.07.2019 of Rs. 40,000/- paid to Rajesh Kumar Santhalia.
2. Cheque no. 551335 dated 05.10.2021 of Rs. 50,000/- paid to Rajesh Kumar Santhalia.
3. Cheque no. 551336 dated 07.102022 of Rs. 50,000/- paid to Rajesh Kumar Santhalia.
4. Rs.590 charged for cheque no. 551377 returned on 29.04.2022 & again Rs.590/- charged for cheque no.38976288 stopped."
3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 15.12.2022 held as under:
"The appellant, through his RTI application, had sought information regarding certified copy of return memos of all the three cheques, for which cheque stop charges of Rs.590/- (Five Hundred Ninety Only) had been deducted thrice from his account.
The Central Public Information Officer has provided an online reply to the appellant. However, it is observed that complete information has not been provided to the appellant in respect of whom the information was sought by the appellant.Page 5 of 7
In view of the above, the Central Public Information Officer is directed to provide the information to the appellant within ten working days of the receipt of the order or inform accordingly."
3.3 Aggrieved with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.03.2023.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
4. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Manish, Regional Manager & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The Respondent submitted that upon receipt of the FAA's order in the month of March, 2023 itself, the directions were complied with on 15.03.2023 by providing the available information point-wise with respect to all the three RTI Application(s). It was further submitted that the Appellant was also called to their office and explained with respect to his grievance that since the cheques were not returned hence no return memo was issued. Upon a query from the Commission regarding the reason for the delayed receipt of the FAA's order dated 19.12.2022 by the CPIO i.e. only in March, 2023, the CPIO appeared clueless and failed to tender any tenable submission.
6. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, takes grave exception to the fact that the initial reply provided by the CPIO was inadequate and rather cyclostyled as the same reply has been provided in response to three separate RTI Applications seeking information based on different queries. Now, even as the CPIO has provided the information as per the provisions of the RTI Act in compliance with the FAA's order, however, the timeline stipulated by the FAA was prima-facie not adhered to and incidentally the compliance reply has been provided to the Appellant by the CPIO immediately after the filing of the instant second appeal(s). Moreover, the CPIO failed to tender any explanation or submission in this regard during the hearing, all of which raises a reasonable doubt that the repeated failure to provide the correct and complete information to the Appellant in a time bound manner was without any reasonable cause and this amounts to causing an obstruction to the Appellant's right Page 6 of 7 to information. Now, therefore the CPIO is directed to send a proper written explanation stating the reason for having provided a cyclostyled reply to all three RTI Applications under reference in the original instance and eventually for causing an inordinate delay in complying with the FAA's order(s). The said written explanation of the CPIO (along with supporting documents) on both the said counts shall duly reach the Commission within 15 days of the receipt of this order, failing which, show-cause proceedings may be initiated in the matter under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
7. The Appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 16.07.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ))
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
State Bank of India, Regional Manager
& CPIO, Regional Business Office- Giridih,
Nilamber Kunj Doctors Lane,
Makatpur Kalibari Road, Distt-Giridih,
Jharkhand- 815301
2. Shiv Narayan Ray
Page 7 of 7
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)