Central Information Commission
Jaikrishan Singh Singh vs State Bank Of India on 18 June, 2024
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/2023/610803
Jaikrishan Singh Singh ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
State Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Sansad Marg, Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 22.01.2023 FA : 02.02.2023 SA : 27.02.2023
CPIO : 27.01.2023 FAO : 16.02.2023 Hearing : 12.06.2024
Date of Decision: 14.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Query 1: Is it true that the Present AGM of RACPC Central (04492), Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Jha, plays or has ever played cricket inside the premises of RACPC Central (04492)?
(ii) Query 2: If answer to the above Query is yes, then as per records of the CCTV footage of RACPC Central (04492), how many times the present AGM of RACPC Central Mr. Rajiv Ranjan had played cricket inside the official premises of RACPC Central (04492) from January 2022 to December 2022?Page 1 of 4
(iii) Query 3: Is playing cricket inside the RACPC Central premises during the working hours or during the recess allowed to the employees of the RACPC Central (04492) under the Central Government/RBI or SBI Rules and Regulations?
(iv) Query 4: Is playing cricket inside the premises is considered as a recreational activity for the entertainment of employees of RACPC Central or is it allowed for the purposes of entertainment of the customers inside the premises of the RACPC?
(v) Query 5: Is playing cricket or any such recreational activity also allowed to the customers who are or may be getting bored while waiting for completion of their work or is it confined only to the employees and officers of the RACPC Central?
(vi) Query 6: If playing cricket or carrying out any such activity is not allowed or permitted inside the premises of the RACPC Central, then what legal action permissible under the relevant rules is taken or to be taken against the erring employee or officers of the RACPC Central(04492)?
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
On perusal of the application, it is observed that Query 1 to Query 6 are in the nature of seeking explanations and clarifications from the CPIO.
Such explanations and clarifications do not fall within the definition of information as contained under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Hence, same cannot be replied by the CPIO under the RTI Act.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.02.2023.
Page 2 of 45. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Gautam K Kumar, CM attended the hearing in Person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the Appellant has sought information which revolves around Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Jha, the then AGM, RACPC, New Delhi playing cricket in office premises. He stated that the information sought by the Appellant is in the nature of explanation and clarifications and the same is not maintained in material form in the Bank. Therefore, information sought is outside the scope of RTI Act, 2005.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application. The written submission of the Respondent is taken on record by the Commission. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the Respondent's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
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: 14.06.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act) State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, A Block Administrative Office Building, 11, Sansad Marg, Delhi - 110001
2. Jaikrishan Singh Singh Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)