Surendra Singhai vs State Bank Of India on 3 August, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Surendra Singhai vs State Bank Of India on 3 August, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.07.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 31.05.2018 and first appeal dated 20.06.2018:-

(i) Certified copy of sanction letter issued by SBI to M/s Sunil Ispat & Power Ltd., Kolkata with details of components funded by SBI.

(ii) Provide details whether this project was funded by SBI alone or in consortium with other lenders, also provide name of other lenders and loan and working capital sanctioned by them.

Page 1 of 7

(iii) Provide installment wise dates of loan and working capital released by SBI to SIPL.

(iv) Provide name of the lead lender appointed on behalf of consortium lenders.

(v) Certified copies of minutes of term lenders consortium meetings of SIPL held on 15/12/2007, 21/06/2008, 03/12/2008 and 27/07/2010.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 31.05.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),State Bank of India, Kolkata, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 11.06.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.06.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 10.07.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 24.07.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 24.07.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.06.2018 denied the information replied that they did not maintain any account in the name of M/s Sunil Ispat & Power Ltd., Kolkata. The FAA vide his order dated 10.07.2018 denied the information under section 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act.

Hearing on 16.07.2020 4.1. The appellant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Shri Manoranjan Ray, CPIO & Dy. Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Kolkata, attended the hearing through the video conference.

Interim order dated 18.09.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 18.09.2020:

Page 2 of 7

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that there was incongruity and contradiction in the reply given by the CPIO and the FAA. The respondent have failed to provide information or adequate grounds to claim exemption of the information which was in the custody of the public authority. As the reply given by the respondent was self-contradictory and evasive, the Registry of thisBench issue Show-cause notice to Shri Vinoy Kumar, the then CPIO and Shri Manoranjan Roy, the present CPIO, State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch Constantia, Kolkata, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO, Manoranjan Roy is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as the show-cause notice to the then CPIO, Shri Vinoy Kumar and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs)should reach to the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is further directed to lay hands with the records and provide proper reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 27.01.2021 4.3. The appellant attended the hearing in person and the respondent remained absent.

4.4. The Commission passed the following directions on 09.02.2021:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of the records, notes that respondent was not present before the Commission despite show cause notice. It is noted that the hearing notices sent to the respondents were returned undelivered. Hence, in the interest of justice, the Commission gives final opportunity to the respondent to attend the hearing to defend their case. Accordingly, the Commission issues a fresh Show cause notices to Shri Vinoy Kumar, the then CPIO and Shri Manoranjan Roy, the present CPIO, State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch Constantia, Kolkata, to explain as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated Page 3 of 7 against each of them for not furnishing complete information. Further, the Registry of this bench is directed to ensure the presence of the CPIOs on the next date of hearing. All the written explanations must reach to the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a revised reply/information to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In view of the above, the instant matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 06.07.2021

5. The appellant attended the hearing in person and the respondent S/Shri Gaurab Banerjee, Present CPIO and Manoranjan Ray, Officer of State Bank of India, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had received a revised point-wise rely/information given by the respondent vide their letter dated 20.10.2020 in compliance of the interim order of the Commission. However, the same was incomplete. He contended that details of project components funded by the SBI as sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application was provided. Similarly, against point no. 2 of the RTI application, the respondent had furnished only name of consortium lenders, however, information in respect of point nos (iii) and (v) of the RTI application were not provided so far. 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the Commission's order dated 18.09.2020 replied vide letter dated 10.10.2020. The CPIO, Mr. Manoranjan Ray, explained that he superannuated on 30.11.2020 and shifted from Kolkata to Bhubaneswar but had not received any communication regarding the last hearing i.e. 27.01.2021. In respect of the information sought in the RTI application, the CPIO explained that the bank had migrated in 1999 from manual banking to Bank Masters software and subsequently the core banking solution was introduced which was prevalent banking software in SBI and other banks. Under CBS system, banking business was easier Page 4 of 7 and easier to locate accounts throughout India. Accordingly, Shri Vinoy Kumar, the then CPIO and Branch Head of IFB Kolkata searched the account details of M/s Sunil Ispat and Power Limited but did not find any mention of such company or account. Subsequently, during the pendency of second appeal, it transpired by employing additional manpower and resources that ARCIL (Asset Reconstruction Company) was one of the creditors of the said company, usually, banks sold their non-performing assets to ARCIL, and, therefore, matter was taken up by their Stresses Assessment Management Branch (SAMB) which were specialized braches to whom NPA accounts were transferred. Upon further investigation, it was found that account of M/s Sunil Ispat and Power Limited was migrated by the IFB branch to the SAMB and it was subsequently sold to ARCIL on 09.03.2013. 5.3. The CPIO in compliance of the Commission's order provided point-wise information vide letter dated 05.03.2021. The CPIO clarified that information in respect of point nos

(iii) and (v) of the RTI application were held by ARCIL which was a separate organization and was not under their custody. Further, the CPIO submitted that they were under an obligation to provide the information available in material form. Therefore, the remaining information having been furnished and the directions of the Commission having fully complied with, the CPIOs requested the Commission to exonerate them.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observed that the respondent had complied with the Commission's order dated 09.02.2021. Further, the respondent may not be compelled to collate or collect information which was not available under their custody in material form. Further, the explanations submitted by the CPIOs were reasonable and satisfactory. The respondent provided point-wise information vide letter dated 05.03.2021. In absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIOs, there appears to appropriate ground to initiate penal action against the CPIOs. Therefore, the show cause notices against Shri Vinoy Kumar, the Page 5 of 7 then CPIO and Shri Manoranjan Ray, the present CPIO, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 02.08.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Sh. MANORANJAN RAY, (former C.P.I.O), STATE BANK OF INDIA, Beltal Pattamundai Kendrapada, Pattamundai, Odisha-754 215 Sh.Vinoy Kumar, The then CPIO, STATE BANK OF INDIA, Flat No. 1703, Tower-15, EXOTICA DREAMVILLE, Plot No. GH-01 A,Sector-16-C, Greater NOIDA(West), Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (CCGRO), STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CLIENT GROUP REGIONAL OFFICE(East), MAGMA HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, 24, PARK STREET, KOLKATA - 700016 Page 6 of 7 CPIO :

1. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, Commercial Clients Group(East), Industrial Finance Branch, Kolkata, "Jeevandeep Building", 5th Floor, 1, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700 071 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O Sh.

MANORANJAN RAY)

2. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, Commercial Clients Group(East), Industrial Finance Branch, Kolkata, "Jeevandeep Building", 5th Floor, 1, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700 071 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O Sh. VINOY KUMAR) Shri Gaurab Banerjee, Assistant General Manager & CPIO, State Bank of India, Commercial Clients Group(East), Industrial Finance Branch, Kolkata, "Jeevandeep Building", 5th Floor, 1, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700 071 Surendra Singhai Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission