Central Information Commission
Roy Mathew vs State Bank Of India on 15 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SBIND/A/2022/626525
Roy Mathew ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
Manager-Litigation
SBI Cards and Payment Services
Limited Devikripa Building
Ground Floor Iyyattil Junction
Chittoor Road Ernakulam 682011
Kerala. .... तवाद गण /Respondent,
Date of Hearing : 13/09/2023
Date of Decision : 13/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20/11/2019
Respondent replied on : 16/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 14/03/2022
First Appeal disposed on : 14/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2019 seeking the following information:1
"1. Did SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited (SBI card) engaged outside agencies to collect KYC data of customers? What are the names and addresses of agencies engaged for the purpose in Kerala? Who collects data in Trivandrum 695013? Do their operations have approval of the RBI?
2. Are they currently being engaged for collection of data? If not, what was the last date on which they were employed? Are they authorised to identify themselves as those from SBI Card? If not, have they been directed to disclose their identity and that of their organisation?
3. Is SBI Card in possession of all the data (mobile photos of Roy Mathew, his driving licence, PAN card and his residence and signed photocopy of driving licence and PAN Card besides the application) collected by persons who identified themselves as from SBI card with respect to Application No.2227201007353 of Roy Mathew (myself)? If they were your agents, what are the steps taken to prevent data breach?
4. What is your connection with "CARD PREVENTION PLAN" and "HEALTH PLAN"
who calls your customers and refuses to disclose the name(s) of their organization (saying that it was confidential) but uses some of the phone numbers (such as +1149371700, 91168140660, 918068426300, 918068426300, 919176660489, 919744546015, 919744546015, 9744546015 and 919744546015)which were also used repeatedly to collect data in the name of SBI Card? Do these telephone numbers belong to SBI Card? If not, what are your business arrangements with these Plans and their promoters?
5. Who is/are behind SMS messages in the names of BZ-SBICARD, VD-SBICARD, BWSBICARD, AD-SBICARD? Do all the SMS headers belong to SBI Card? If not, do you know the identities of persons using them? If yes, kindly provide their names and addresses. If your name (SBI Card) is being used without authorisation, have you taken any legal measures against them?"
The Respondent office furnished a reply to the appellant on 16.02.2022 stating as under:
"Please refer to your present appeal dated January 25, 2020 relating to your SBI Card Account to the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi.2
In this context, please note that we were never in receipt of your application dated 20th November 2019 as annexed with the present appeal.
In this context please note that SBI Card is a product of SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd which is not a public authority under section 2(h) of RTI Act 2005 as such. However, as a customer centric organization, we have treated the same as customer complaint and the issues pertaining to your card account has been replied accordingly.
Please note the detailed reply as under:-
1. That the query does not relate to your personal card account.
2. That the query does not relate to your personal card account.
3. That SBI Card Account No 0004377486001970779 was issued to you basis duly signed application form and accordingly documents were received from your end.
4. That the query does not relate to your personal Card account.
5. That the query does not relate to your personal Card account."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.03.2022. The First Appeal was disposed of vide a reply dated 14.04.2022 stating as under:-
"Without prejudice to the reply below, please note that the contents of your purported appeal are not correct and has presented a distorted picture of even the Hon'ble CIC's order dated March 18, 2022
1. This has reference to your purported Appeal dated March 14,2022 in connection with your RTI Application dated 20th November 2019 relating to your SBI Card Account to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd.
2 In this context, please note that the CPIO vide his letter dated April 16, 2022, has furnished information based on your query as per available information.
3 The ad verbatim operating para of the order of CIC is quoted below:
"The Commission observes that since the complainant has preferred complaint Us 18 of the RTI Act the Commission is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of 3 information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act and since a due reply has been furnished by the respondent vide letters dated 16.02.2022, hence no further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter."
Nevertheless, we are once again attaching the detailed reply already furnished to you."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Pawan Kumar, Litigation Head- SUP Legal along with Saloni Mehra, Litigation Manager present in person.
Pawan Kumar for SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited invited the attention of the bench to their written submissions stating as under:
"2. That SBI Card and Payment Services (SBI Card as mentioned then after) and State Bank of India are separate and distinct legal entities. Further, SBI Card is not a public Authority as such u/s 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005, however, we treat the application of the card holder as a customer complaint and redress the grievance accordingly.
3.a. The issue in the present case emerges out of RTI application which was filed by Mr. Roy Mathew and has already been replied as a customer complaint.
b. It is further submitted that upon the issue of summon dated 30th August 2023 being brought to the attention of the answering respondent, an appropriate reply treating the said application under RTI which has now been received along with the summons from this Hon'ble Commission. A copy of the duly signed application form marked as Annexure A and the contents of same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity c. It is thus humbly submitted that as all the information as sought by the Appellant has been duly given to the Appellant, hence there is no cause of action against the answering Respondent.
44. The answering respondent would also like to most humbly place on record, the order of this Commission passed in the Complaint no. CIC/SBIND/C/2018/139903 in the matter of Sudhir Kumar Telang vs CPIO: SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt Ltd. wherein this Hon'ble Commission was not inclined to examine the substantial question of law as to whether SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. is a public authority or not under Section 2(h) of RTI Act as the said question of law was left open by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 12.07.2010.
5. It is most humbly submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with a similar matter in the case of SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt Ltd vs Shri Arun Kumar Verma & Ors, made the following observations in its order dated 12.07.2010:
'it is not necessary to determine the question of Law whether the SBI Cards is a 'public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. That question can be left open for being decided in an appropriate case. Consequently, it is clarified that the impugned order dated 07 September 2007 of the CIC holding SBI Cards to be a public authority will not constitute a precedent either for any other case against the SBI Cards before the CIC or in this court. The question is left open for decision in an appropriate case.'
5. Reference of this Hon'ble Commission to the order of this Hon'ble Commission passed in the case of Vijay Trimbak Gokhale vs SBI Mutual Fund Trustee Company Pvt Ltd in Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/141131 and the principles enunciated in the said order dated 26 May 2010 is also sought. The operative part of the said order is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
'it has been established that there is no direct and indirect control of the Central and the State Government over the respondent organisation. Further, the primary onus is on the complainant to establish that the "SBI Mutual Fund" is a public authority under section 2(n) of the RTI Act Further, the constitution of the Board of Directors within the respondent company further strengthens the fact that SBI does not exercise complete control over the Board of SBIMF.'
6. It is also humbly submitted that SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited does not fall within the ambit of the definition of "public authority" as mentioned under the RTI Act, as "Public Authority" means any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted-5
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament:
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature,
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes anybody-
i) owned, controlled or substantially financed;
ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
It is humbly submitted that none of the criteria mentioned herein above is met by the answering respondent to be covered under the definition of public authority.
7. That its respectfully submitted that reference may also kindly be made to the decision of this Hon'ble Commission in the complaint no. CIC/SBIND/C/2019/645247 Naveen Kashyap Vs SBI wherein it has been held that SBI Card is not a public authority.
In view of the facts and circumstances which have now been brought to the attention of this Hon'ble Commission by the answering Respondent, the following prayers are humbly made for the kind consideration:-
It is submitted that as the information/along with documents as sought by the Appellant has again been given by the answering Respondent in the manner as directed by this Hon'ble Commission, it is most humbly prayed that the Appeal so filed by the Applicant be disposed off accordingly.
The answering respondent also most humbly submits that in view of the submission which have now been made by the answering Respondent, the observations so made by the Hon'ble Commission on the question of law of whether the answering respondent is a Public Authority or not, be left open."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the instant RTI Application has been filed directly with the SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited, which has not been declared as a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act as yet by the CIC or the superior Courts as such. Nonetheless, it has been noted 6 that SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited have taken due cognizance of the instant RTI Application and First Appeal by deeming them as grievance petitions and disposed them of with factual replies provided by their AVP, FRM-Litigation team.
In the grounds of the instant matter, the Appellant has not asked for deciding the amenability of SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited to the mandate of the RTI Act but has specifically asked for directions to the "CPIO" to provide information and has challenged the role of the officer who replied to both his RTI Application and First Appeal as being assuming the role of CPIO & FAA and therefore argues that it is in contravention of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing observation and in the absence of any order to this effect holding the SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited to be a public authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act while also keeping in view the detailed submissions of the Respondent office, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7