Central Information Commission
M. L. Soneji vs State Bank Of India on 27 August, 2018
के ीय 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/2017/602427
M. L. Soneji ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, State Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Retail Assets Centralized
Processing Centre, Mumbai.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.01.2017 FA : 02.03.2017 SA : 09.05.2017
CPIO : 10.02.2017 FAO : 28.04.2017 Hearing : 14.08.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Mumbai seeking certified copies of the original documents, (i) Dast Goshvara Section 1 for document TNNN2- Sr No. 10068/2009- Sr. No. 11, and (ii) Index No. II for document Sr. No. 10068/2009 dated 30.10.2009- Sr. No. 12, Page 1 of 6 submitted by him vide letter dated 30.10.2009 in respect of his Housing Loan A/c No. 000000309xxxxxx92 and duly acknowledged by Chief Manager, SBI RACPC, Mumbai.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has not informed him regarding the procedure for making online payment of Rs. 8/- towards photocopying charges despite his repeated requests. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the account details to enable him to deposit the prescribed fees or to debit his account by the said amount and provide information sought without further delay. In addition to the above, he requested for imposition of penalty upon the CPIO for not accepting the payment and consequent delay in furnishing the information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Shri M. L. Soneji and the respondent, Shri Siddharth Borkar, Chief Manager and Shri Sanjay Deshmukh, Manager, SBI RACPC, Sion, Mumbai attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO has denied him the information sought by not providing the account details so as to enable him to deposit the prescribed fees and obtain the copies of the desired documents, despite his repeated requests. He had also requested the CPIO to debit his account by Rs. 8/- towards photocopying charges. However, the CPIO did not accept his request.
5. The respondent submitted that the CPIO vide reply dated 10.02.2017 had informed the appellant that he can obtain the requisite documents by visiting the respective branch, RACPC Ghatkopar along with his ID Proof and pay the Page 2 of 6 prescribed fee in cash. Alternatively, he was also advised to send Rs. 8/- through Demand Draft/Banker's Cheque/ Pay Order favouring State Bank of India, RACPC, Ghatkopar so as to get the documents by post at his mailing address. Further, Para 6 of Notification dated 31.07.2012 of DoPT states that the RTI Act prescribes five methods for payment of cost of information, cash, DD, Banker's cheque, IPO and online payment. However, the system for online payment of cost of information had not become operational as on the date of the reply to the RTI application. The respondent further stated that the housing loan account of the appellant was closed on 22.03.2018 and all original documents have been returned to him on 27.04.2018. In response to a query, the respondent clarified that Index II is an extract from the Registration Office and register maintained by the Stamp & Registration Department, Government of Maharashtra. Further, the Dast Goshawara contains details of buyer(s)/seller(s)/witnesses and is attested by the Sub-Registrar.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the appellant is seeking certified copies of the documents submitted by him to the bank. Moreover, the documents sought pertain to records maintained by the Stamp and Registration Department, Government of Maharashtra. Further, the respondent is not the exclusive custodian of records relating to property. The Commission also notes that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of High Court, Madras vs. Central Information Commission, Writ Petition No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014 has held as follows:
Page 3 of 6".......we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right ............. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
7. The Commission further observes that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 21/11/2017 (W.P.(C) 3530/2011- The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. RS Mishra) has held as under:
"55. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act reveals that the said Act is concerned only with that information, which is under the exclusive control of the 'public authority'. Providing copies/certified copies is not separate from providing information....."
8. Nonetheless, the respondent vide letter dated 10.02.2017 had informed the appellant that they have kept ready verified copies of the documents sought for and the same could be obtained by paying the requisite fee. Hence, it cannot be surmised that the respondent had consciously and deliberately withheld the information with a malafide intention. Hence, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO. The Commission also notes that the RTI Act has provided for Page 4 of 6 setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities. Hence, it is expected that the CPIO would be more proactive in disclosing information to the public. In this context, the Commission agrees with the appellant's suggestion that "where the citizen has made RTI Application online and the facility of making fee payment online exists, the details of account to which such payment/amount is credited should transparently be displayed by all such organizations where the RTI Applications are accepted online with online fee payment. Further, whenever the applicant is informed the amount to be remitted for providing the information, CPIO/Appellate Authority should invariably give complete details of their relevant bank account so that the amount can be remitted to such account online by the appellant." The Commission, therefore, recommends the Department of Personnel and Training to have the appellant's suggestion examined for further necessary action.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 21.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Nodal Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India Retail Assets Centralized Processing Centre, 1st Floor, Ashok Silk Mills Compound, LBS Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai- 400086.
3. Shri M. L. Soneji Page 6 of 6