Central Information Commission
Vinod Garg vs State Bank Of India on 12 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2021/660278
Vinod Garg ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
State Bank of India
Regional Business Office -2
Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Rajasthan-302015
Date of Hearing : 04/07/2023
Date of Decision : 04/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 01/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 07/09/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 28/09/2021
Second Appeal dated : 15/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.08.2021 seeking the following information:1
The CPIO vide its letter dated 01.11.2021 given point-wise reply/information to the Appellant on his RTI application, which states as under:
"As per CBS record, Loan account no 51010237983 is having approval date as 05/09/2001 Loan account no 61155406884 is having loan approval date as 20/04/2012. Loan document migration date not available with branch. Maintenance code of loan account no CO 1010237983 is RACPC 31868 (RACPC Jawahar Nagar), Maintenance code of loan account no 1155406884 Is RACPC 17389 (RACPC Chitrakoot).
Loan documents migrated to RACPC as per above details and maintenance code in CB5 is ready showing. Details of documents are not available with branch as per available record.
Maintenance code of loan account no 51010237983 is RACPC 31868 (RACPC Jawahar Nagar).
Maintenance code of loan account no 61155406884 is RACPC 17389 (RACPC Chitrakoot).2
List of Documents are provided to customers by bank at the time of document execution.
Details not available with branch.
Property papers were lost/untraceable at RACPC end. However, certified copies have already been provided by us to Mr. Vinod Garg, obtained by our bank empanalled advocate Sh Rajeev Singhal The matter Details not available with branch. The details are to be provided by RACPC as these charges to be levied by RACPC. The matter escalated to RACPC and will take some time. As per available record in branch, FIR date is 05/04/2021 time 11:28 hrs. News Paper Publication date is 06/04/2021 in Rajasthan Patrika, Rashtradoot. No material Information is available in this regard. Details as per point number 10.
Record not available with branch regarding Second FIR. Details provided in point no 10 No material Information is available in this regard. Matter escalated to RACPC and the information would be furnished at the earliest"
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.09.2021. The FAA order dated 28.09.2021 is as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri Avinash Awasthi, AGM present through Video-Conference.3
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that complete and correct information was not provided to him by the Respondent on his RTI application.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 01.11.2021, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Respondent submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on his RTI application. The Respondent apprised the Commission that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application has been provided to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Since, the Appellant has a grievance, he is advised to approach appropriate administrative forum in order to redress his grievance.
Hence, no intervention of the Commission at this stage is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5