Central Information Commission
Mr.A M Attar vs State Bank Of India on 7 November, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/DS/A/2011/003068/VS/1270
Appeal No.CIC/DS/A/2011/003068/VS
Dated: 7.11.2012
Appellant: Shri A.M. Attar,
Flat No.5, Shamshad Nagar,
D/2 Building, MumbaiPune Road,
Mumbra, Mumbai 400 612
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
State Bank of India,
Mumbai Zonal Office, RegionV,
Madhuli Building, 1st Floor,
H/2, Shivsagar Estate,
Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Worli, Mumbai400 018
Date of Hearing: 7.11.2012
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 17.1.2011 seeking information relating to the nonfunctioning of the counters at rush hour, including nondisplay of lunch hour, withholding of the pension, and details of medical conveyance allowance on pension account, etc.
2. The PIO responded on 23.2.2011 stating that the bank always operated three counters, and that the lunch hour was prominently displayed in the hall. With regard to withholding of pension and medical conveyance allowance, the PIO stated that necessary affidavit had not been submitted by the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal on 28.2.2011 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 6.5.2011 with direction to the PIO to reexamine and give point wise specific reply to the appellant. The PIO on 27.5.2011 complied with the directions of the FAA. The appellant filed a second appeal on 12.8.2011 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The respondent was present at the hearing through teleconferencing. The respondent stated that the RTI application, containing seven points, had been responded to on all the points, and that there should have been no reason for the appellant to have come in the second appeal. The respondent by way of background stated that the RTI application was responded to in a couple of stages. It was stated that four points, out of seven points that had been raised, had been responded to at the first instance by the PIO, and the remaining 3 points were responded to after the order of the FAA.
4. The respondent stated that the seven questions had covered a wide area of subjects, i.e., the functioning of the branch, the teller system, the signages in the bank, the staff strength, and the pension and reimbursement procedures. The respondent said that the appellant himself was a customer of the bank, and that the second response was a comprehensive one. It was explained that the response, which was sent by courier, had remained undelivered, and then this had been resent by speed post. The respondent said that this delivery system also became the subject of a follow up question of the RTI application which was also responded to.
5. The appellant was not present at the hearing.
6. It is apparent that the respondent has provided to the appellant the information on all the points of the RTI application.
Decision:
7. No further action is needed in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer