Central Information Commission
Shri Girish Chandra vs State Bank Of India on 4 February, 2010
Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000386 dated 18.07.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 4 February 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Girish Chandra
S/o Shri Ramswaroop,
Residence 459, Anandpuri,
Gigola Road, Atta, U.P.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
G.M. (Network - 2),
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
The Appellant was present along with Shri Manish Kumar. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Anil Kumar Baheti, Manager (Law),
(ii) Shri H.C. Manchanda, Deputy Manager
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 18 July 2008, requested the CPIO for a number of information regarding the writing off of his loan under the PMRY. In his reply dated 1 October 2008, the CPIO declined to provide any information by claiming that what had been sought did not amount to information. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant approached the first Appellate Authority on 13 October 2008. That authority dismissed his appeal by concurring in the finding of the CPIO. Consequently, the Appellant has come before the CIC in second appeal.
3. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their submissions. We carefully perused the reply of the CPIO and the order of the CIC/SM/A/2009/000386 first Appellate Authority. We totally disagree with their contention that the information sought by the Appellant did not fall within the meaning of the term as defined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Merely because the Appellant had raised queries, the information cannot be denied to him by resorting to technicalities.
4. The Appellant submitted that he had been subjected to a lot of harassment and financial loss because of the reluctance on the part of the CPIO in providing him with the correct information. We tend to agree with his submission. This is a clear case in which instead of giving information in the first place, the Appellant was forced to go through the appeal process right up to the CIC. This was entirely avoidable had the CPIO provided the information at the beginning. In the process, the Appellant has suffered both avoidable inconvenience and some financial loss by way of visiting this Commission for the hearing of the appeal and also in pursuing the case with the first Appellate Authority. In view of this, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in Section 19(8) (b), we direct the State Bank of India to compensate the Appellant to the extent of Rs 3000 towards the cost of transportation and postage as well as the opportunity cost for the time lost.
5. We give the following two directions to the CPIO:
i) to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the defeat of this order complete information on all counts as sought by him;
ii) to arrange to pay him the amount of compensation as stated above within 30 working days from the receipt of this order by way of a demand draft or Banker's Cheque.
CIC/SM/A/2009/000386
iii) to explain in writing within 15 working days from the receipt of this order if the CPIO had any reasonable cause for not providing adequate information within the stipulated period of 30 days. It may be noted that if we do not receive his explanation within this time limit, we will proceed to decide on the imposition of penalty on him for the delay in his response to the Appellant as per the provisions of section 20(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
6. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(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 CIC/SM/A/2009/000386