Gopal Kumar Jha vs State Bank Of India on 17 May, 2019

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Gopal Kumar Jha vs State Bank Of India on 17 May, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 19.11.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 27.08.2017 and first appeal dated 04.10.2017:

(i) Details of all education loan sanctioned by RACPC Patna and SPB Branch Patna in 2006.

(ii) Total amount of interest subsidy given to students through RACPC and SPB from 2010 to 2017 under interest subsidy scheme.

Page 1 of 3

(iii) Name of all students with amount who received subsidy from 2010 to 2017 through RACPC and SPB Branch Patna.

(iv) Xerox attested copy of all documents through which interest subsidy was disbursed by RACPC Branch Patna 2010 to 2017.

(v) Name and account number of all accounts in which extra or more interest has been charged in education loan account from 2016 to 2017 by SPB and RACPC Patna.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 27.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Local Head office, Patna seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 18.09.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 04.10.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 08.11.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 19.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 19.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO is unsatisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information and take necessary action as per sub-sections (1) & (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act. The appellant also stated that information is related to corruption in interest subsidy scheme because matter is in Patna High Court so disclosure of information is in larger public interest.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.09.2017 denied the information stating that information sought is third party information, hence cannot be provided under sub section (1) of section 8 and section 11 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated Page 2 of 3 08.11.2017 directed the CPIO to provide the information on point no. (ii) of the RTI application and on rest of the points denied under clauses (d), (e) & (j) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act.

5. The appellant and the respondent Mr. N.K. Sinha, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Patna attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.1. The appellant inter-alia argued that the information supplied is incorrect.

5.2. The respondent submitted that they have given reply and again supplemented the information vide their letter dated 09.01.2019 in pursuance of the First Appellate Authority's order dated 10.11.2017.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that due reply has already been given to the appellant. The Commission also finds that there is no public interest in prolonging this matter and interest of justice will be served if the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date:17.05.2019 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission