Central Information Commission
Shri M. Mustakim vs State Bank Of India on 3 June, 2009
Central Information Commission
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/0467-SM dated 25.06.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 03.06.2009
Complainant : Shri M. Mustakim
Respondent : State Bank of India
The Complainant is not present, in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Ms. N. Ukrani, AGM (Law)
(ii) Shri S.B. Sapra, Manager (HR)
The case in brief is as under.
2. The Complainant had addressed an application, without his signature, on 25 June 2007 to the Chief Manager, Regional Office, Raipur seeking copies of two different documents. Since his application was unsigned, it was returned to him on 22 December 2007 with the observation that no action could be taken on it. In the meanwhile, it appears, the Complainant had already sent a signed application to the Assistant General Manager on 8 October 2007. The CPIO replied to the latest application also in his letter dated 22 December 2007 providing him with the copy of the desired documents. In the meanwhile, the Complainant had already sent his complaint to the CIC on 8 November 2007.
3. During the hearing, the Complainant was not present. The Respondent was present and furnished copies of the communications sent by the CPIO to the Complainant. It is noted that the CPIO had provided the desired information to the Complainant but rather late. The CPIO has stated that the revised and signed application of the Complainant dated 8 October 2007 was received in his office on 10 November 2007. Since he replied finally on 22 December 2007, there is obviously a delay of nearly 12 days beyond the stipulated period for which he is liable for imposition of penalty as provided in Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Respondent explained that the delay was caused as the information sought had to be collected from the office where he had been posted at the time of his retirement and, in the process, the information could not be given within the stipulated period.
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/0467-SM
4. As we have observed earlier in several cases concerning the State Bank of India, its information delivery mechanism under the Right to Information (RTI) Act is too centralised for timely dissemination of information. Instead of decentralising the delivery of information by appointing CPIOs at local/sub-Zonal level, it has appointed only one CPIO and one Appellate Authority at its Circle Office which has to service the information needs of all the citizens covering the geographical area of one or more states. This arrangement is bound to cause delays and inconvenience to the information seekers. Once again, we would like to advise the Public Authority to put in place a more elaborate and decentralised arrangement by appointing more CPIOs and first Appellate Authorities at the local levels.
5. In this case, since the desired information has already been provided, even though somewhat late, there is nothing more to be done. The complaint is, thus, disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar No.CIC/PB/C/2008/0467-SM