Central Information Commission
K Sathish Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 30 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/608210
K Sathish Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Coimbatore ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
FA : 13.09.2023 &
RTI : 19.07.2023 SA : 25.02.2024
11.12.2023
CPIO : 16.08.2023; FAO : 29.11.2023 &
Hearing : 22.05.2025
04.12.2023 19.01.2024
Date of Decision: 30.05.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. "An amount of 53.10 was debited from my account number *********5526 on 15-04-2023 with the description "CHEQUE BOOK ISSUE CHARGE---
38976288". Provide the number of cheques and a breakdown of service charges to arrive at the amount.
1.1. Provide the serial numbers of the cheque leaves. 1.2. Provide the address to which the cheque book was sent.
Page 1 of 81.2.1. My PIN code is 641402 (page 6-9) but the cheque book was sent to 600036 as per the track consignment page (page 10 & 11). Provide the reason for sending the cheque book to the wrong address. 1.2.2. Provide the name, designation, and address of the officer responsible for the above.
1.3. Provide a certified copy of the Department of Posts receipt. 1.4. Does the bank send me the consignment tracking number? If the reply is yes to the above question, provide the following details:
1.4.1. Provide the date and mode (e-mail, SMS, etc.) of communication. 1.4.2. Provide a certified copy of the above proof...." etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Query No 1: 25 cheque leaves were issued on 15-04-2023. First 10 cheque leaves are free in a financial year. After that, each cheque leaf costs Rs.3/- + GST @ 18%, i.e. 15 cheque leaves x Rs.3.54/- Rs.53.10/-
1.1: Serial numbers of cheque leaves issued - 502661 to 502685 1.2: Address to which the cheque leaves were issued Student M Tech 360 Brahmaputra Student M Tech 360 Brahmaputra IIT Chennai 600036 1.2.1: Address to be delivered was not filled in the customer request form. Hence cheque book was delivered to last available cheque book dispatch address of the customer in system.
1.2.2: Cheque book request was posted in system by staff Shri. Senthil Anandan K, Sr. Associate, SBI Sulur Town Branch and authorised by Shri. Dhilip R, Probationary Officer, SBI Sulur Town Branch.Page 2 of 8
1.3: Cheque Leaves are sent to customers through Centralised processing centres. Hence the office of this CPIO does not have the required information.
1.4: Consignment tracking number is usually communicated to customer via SMS to the registered mobile number.
1.4.1: SMS was sent to the applicant's Registered Mobile number (******1305) on 19.04.2023. Delivery status is failed due to "Handset Error / Mobile out of Network Coverage or is Switched Off".
1.4.2: A screenshot of the SMS delivery report is attached...."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 29.11.2023 directed as under:
"I have dispassionately examined the application and the appeal of the appellant. have also called for other relevant details in this regard and carefully examined the issues involved. It is observed that the Appellant had submitted the application incorporating several queries under different heads which in my view would substantially divert the resources and time of the public authority in answering to his queries.
However, the CPIO has provided suitable reply / available information in respect of each query (Except Query No.1,4 & 2.3) which would satisfy the requirements of RTI Act. Therefore, in my view no intervention is required in this regard.
Further, I direct the CPIO to review the reply provided to query No.1, 4 & 2.3 and furnish suitable reply to the Appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order."
4. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO replied to the Appellant on 04.12.2023 stating as under:
Page 3 of 8"Query 1: 25 cheque leaves were issued on 15.04.2023. Applicable Charges for issuance of Cheque book in savings bank accounts are as follows: First 10 cheque leaves free in a financial year. Thereafter: 10 Leaf Cheque Book at 240/-+GST. 25 Leaf Cheque Book at ₹75/-+ GST.
On 15.04.2023, Rs.53.10/- was debited from your SB account towards Cheque Book issue Charges. Subsequently the same was reversed on 12.06.2023.
Query No 2.3: We have instructed all the branches under our control to accept all RTI payment applications along with the specified voucher and also guide the applicants of the same. The Sulur Town Branch has also been instructed to follow the same guidelines regarding the above.
Query 4: 25 cheque leaves were issued on 15.04.2023 and subsequently 10 cheque leaves issued on 17.05.2023 after receiving the customer's compliant on non receipt of the earlier issued Cheque book. Applicable Charges for issuance of Cheque book in savings bank accounts are as follows: First 10 cheque leaves free in a financial year. Thereafter: 10 Leaf Cheque Book at 240/-+GST. 25 Leaf Cheque Book at ₹75/-+GST.
On 17.05.2023, Rs.35.40/- was debited from your SB account towards Cheque Book issue Charges. Subsequently the same was reversed on 12.06.2023 along with the previously issued Cheque book charges of Rs.53.10/- and an amount of Rs.88.50/- was credited to your SB account on 12.06.2023."
5. Against the said reply, the Appellant filed another First Appeal dated 11.12.2023, in respect of which the FAA issued an order on 19.01.2024 upholding the compliance reply filed by the CPIO.
6. Aggrieved with the said FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.02.2024.
7. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Gayatri, Regional Manager & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 4 of 88. The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the mention of Section 2(f) by the CPIO and questioned as to why the RTI Application was not transferred to the concerned public authority.
9. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and relied on the contents of their written submissions dated 21.05.2025 stating as under:
"5. It is most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission that the queries raised by the applicant is in the form of complaint or seeking clarifications from the CPIO for debiting charges for Issuance of cheque book and for not sending the cheque book to the proper address. The Bank's branch at Sulur Town, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu has already received the complaint and has rectified the errors by reversing the charges of Rs88.50/-(53.10+35.40) debited from the customer's account and has also ensured the delivery of the cheque book to the correct address. However, it appears that the customer is not satisfied with the resolution provided by the branch and has approached various Forums seeking clarification for the said action of the said Bank's branch at Sulur Town, Coimbatore.
6. In this regard, we have already informed the applicant through our RTI reply in response to his RTI application itself the reason for sending cheque book to the wrong address and has later rectified the mistakes once it was bought to the knowledge of the Bank. Therefore, if the applicant/customer is not satisfied with the action of the branch in doing so, he has to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his complaint and this Hon'ble Central Information Commission is not the appropriate Forum for the redressal of the complaints raised by the applicant."
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that despite the cumbersome nature of the RTI queries largely asking for clarifications and the non-conformity of the contents thereof to the word limit prescribed in RTI Rules 2012, the CPIO & FAA have facilitated the Appellant to the farthest extent feasible in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. Further, the submissions filed by the CPIO at this stage leave for no scope of Page 5 of 8 any intervention in the matter. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
(Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority Page 6 of 8 nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied)
11. Further, the Appellant is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Page 7 of 8
12. Having observed as above, no relief or action is warranted in the matter. The Appellant is hereby advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum.
13. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 30.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO State Bank of India, CPIO, Regional Business Office-1, Coimbatore South, Network-3, Administrative Office, Kurinji Complex, State Bank Road, Coimbatore-641 018 2 K Sathish Kumar Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)