Central Information Commission
Rathnakaran Kumbakkudi vs State Bank Of India on 7 May, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या /Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/100632 +
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/143513
Rathnakaran Kumbakkudi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
State Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Kannur, Kerala
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28.06.2022 & FA : 27.08.2022 & SA : 28.12.2022 &
17.04.2023 19.06.2023 25.10.2023
CPIO : 28.07.2022 & FAO : 28.09.2022 &
Hearing : 02.05.2024
17.05.2023 19.07.2023
Date of Decision: 06.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/100632
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2022 seeking information through 19 points and sub-points in the following manner:
(i) "Names of property valuers doing valuations since 2018 till date and the dates from which they are doing valuations and the date from which they are included in the panel of valuers.
(ii) Names of valuers, dates of their engagement at RBO/RASMECCC level with/without approval from higher authority, if any Page 1 of 15
(iii) Qualifications (DCE, BTech-Civil etc), valuation experience and registration (CCIT/IBBI) details of valuers, at the time of their appointment, as at ii, above.
(iv) The reason/s which necessitated the engagement of such valuers as at ii, above.
(v) The general criteria for entrusting/distributing valuation assignments to valuers..." etc. 1.2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. "List attached and additionally.
1.Sreerag Raveendran
2. Sasidharan P V
ii. All our existing valuers are appointed with necessary approvals as stipulated by
the bank. Date of engagement is mentioned in reply for item I. iii. SBI, Trivandrum Circle has more than 150 empaneled valuers. As you are well aware, the process of empanelment is done centrally as per bank's stipulated norms for qualifications and eligibility, The details of all these valuers cannot be provided.
iv. The query raised does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act.
v. a. In order to ascertain the value of different types of properties, bank shall engage the services of valuers who are empaneled with the bank. b. In case assets to be valued is outside the centre where credit facility is being availed or had been availed, in such a scenario, services of a valuer on Bank's panel at the centre where asset is situated is to be utilized for valuation of asset(s). c. While engaging the services of an empaneled valuer care to be taken to verify that the valuer does not figure in the de-paneled or caution list of our Bank, IBBI and IBA.
d. The branches/ operating units shall assign the task to the empaneled valuers on rotation basis, to enable equal distribution of work to the empaneled service providers..."
Page 2 of 151.3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2022. The FAA vide order dated 28.09.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.12.2022.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/143513
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.04.2023 seeking information through 17 points and sub-points in the following manner:
(i) "As many of the information provided for my RTI application dt.28.06.22 were partial, irrelevant and rejected citing the clause 8(1), but the last para of 8(1)() without ambiguity emphasise, "Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person". None of the information sought by me from the SBI-CPIO can be denied to Parliament or State Legislature and hence does not come under rejection category. The information sought are withheld intentionally by CPIO just to hide the irregularities, severe deviations from the Transparency policies, rules and procedures established by State Bank of India. Hence, I have preferred 2nd appeal to CIC. On rejected information, it is requested to provide reasons why it should not be moved for contempt of Parliament/Legislature.
(ii) It is replied to the query XVI of my RTI application dt.28-06-22, that the internal auditors commented on the format of my valuation reports. Please provide a copy of this audit report.
(iii) RASMECCC mail dt.05.08.21 on valuation format was replied in detail dt.23.08.21, on each item of the format, identical to the one mailed, for which Page 3 of 15 there was no reply/comment. In this regard, please provide the following information, a. The date on which the new format was introduced.
b. Number of accepted reports, submitted by me, using my wrong format, after iii(a) date.
c. Number of accepted reports, submitted by me, subsequent to these mails, using my wrong format, for all branches under the Kannur RBO? d. Number of valuation reports rejected citing the defect in my formats. e. There was no rejection of reply mail dt.23.08.21, explaining each item of format in detail, it is obvious that the explanation is accepted. Moreover, several valuation reports were accepted thereafter with the same format. How the reports in non-acceptable formats were accepted? f. This issue is again raised in AGM's letter dt.17.12.22. Please specify the differences in the SBI's format and my "self-designed" format.
(iv) In the reply of SPIO dt.28.07.22 to the query XVI of my aforesaid application that "Also we have noticed that an SME valuation was done on the wrong property. (Not the one for which you were engaged to). These discrepancies made us put a hold on engaging you with further assignments".
In this regard following are required, a. A copy of the engagement letter of this so-called real property, which I was assigned to do valuation & name of the customer.
b. Copies of documents provided to me for doing the real property, as per the assignment letter.
c. Copy of my wrong valuation report (signed one), I have submitted. d. How it was concluded that the valuation was done on the wrong property?
Page 4 of 15e. Date on which the wrong property valuation came to the notice of the SME division.
f. Date and amount of disbursement of the loan to the customer based on my wrong report.
g. Details of action taken on knowing that the valuation is done on wrong property.
h. If no action is taken, why no action as it is a serious issue. i. Why the valuation done on wrong property was not informed to me as soon as it was noticed?
j. The above RTI reply was given by SPIO on 28.07.22. Even after elapsing 8 months why no explanation was sought from me? Why just a passing reference in SPIO reply dt.28.07.22?
k. How the problem of above wrong property valuation was solved ? l. Copies of all the correspondence to all higher authorities/ auditor on this subject.
(v) I had submitted a serious complaint to SBI's Chief Vigilance Officer dt.05.11.22 in response to the radio advertisements and flex boards displayed in various branches of SBI on Vigilance Week, calling for a corruption free/clean system. But itis intriguing and mockery of all laws, rules, regulations and procedures, the reply dt.17.12.2022 was sent by the authority (RASMECCC) against whom the complaint was made. Provide copies of all letters exchanged on this issue with CVO, Dy MD with AGM, RASMECCC. Further, following information also required, a. I was not aware that this is the quality of vigilance week SBI advertised, using public money, at National Level. Congratulations to CVO to promptly forward the complaint to AGM for reply and close it at his level I| was waiting for a reply from the CVO till date. In the absence of it, AGM's reply is treated as the official Page 5 of 15 reply of SBI. Please provide a copy of the authority by which AGM can send reply to the complaint to CVO, on charges against his own branch. b. Copy of the order by which AGM can close the complaint against himself, as per last para.
c. Under point 1 of AGM's reply dt.17.12.22, AGM acknowledges, my valuation bills were pending for 5 years. Also say that the bills submitted were not having sufficient data. All my bills are automated in MS Excel, based on formulas, software generated and hence all the bills contain standard details. As per the data provided by SPIO, I was doing hundreds of valuations in a year and itis the responsibility of SBI to clear bills as soon as the valuation reports are received (at least in 45 days). It is a naked truth that it was not done with malafide intention. Provide information when all bills contain the same information, 75% of the bills are paid and how only 25% of them, accumulated for 5 years became a huge amount, lack the required information. Please do not spread lies at the level of AGM.
d. On what date RASMECCC found out that the bills did not have the required information.
e. Copy of reply to my letter dt.13.08.20, in hard copy form and acknowledged by RASMECCC.
f. Copy of reply to my letter dt.13.08.20, in hard copy form and acknowledged by RASMECCC.
g. Copy of reply to my letter dt.09.03.21, in hard copy form and acknowledged by RASMECCC.
h. Copy of reply to my letter dt.08.04.21, in hard copy form and acknowledged by RASMECCC.
i. Copy of reply to my letter dt.15.09.21, in hard copy form and acknowledged by RASMECCC, Page 6 of 15 j. When official letters were given for a serious issue of bills pending in lakhs, for years, it is the responsibility of a CPSB to reply immediately. Why this was not done ?
k. Copy of letters/mails informing me, the bills do not contain the required information.
l. All the bills were submitted along with the valuation reports. Why all the bills were not paid at the time of disbursement/rejection of loan and allowed to become pending for 4-5 years ?
m. How the bills were then cleared without any additional information from me ?
n. Why the method adopted to pay the bills after filing my RTI Application was not adopted earlier, at least after receiving my repeated letters, as above, as the pending bills is a serious matter ?
o. When SBI is having highly publicized "Code of Ethics", why the "Code of Ethics" are not followed in the case of pending bills ? p. As per page 14 at point 8 of "Policy on Valuation & Empanelment of Valuers 2019" of SBI, Vendor Management System (VMS) is to be updated by RASMECCC which clearly stipulates, ".... should be meticulously followed for engagement, allotment of work, payment of fees, delisting/de-panelment and review of performance of valuer, etc". Every data of valuer's work allotment including payment of fees should be available in VMS. Then the reason for non- payment of fees for 4-5 years due to lack of information is again a blatant lie. Based on the information in VMS, the bills could have been paid but still why they were pending for 4-5 years.
q. It is stipulated at point 8, mentioned above, that "The details of the valuer empaneled by the Bank, shall be uploaded in Vendor Management System (VMS) application of the Bank as per the laid down instructions vide e-circular No. Page 7 of 15 CCO/ CPPD-ADV/87/2016- 17 dated 14th October, 2016. The instructions in said circular should be meticulously followed for engagement, allotment of work, payment of fees, delisting/de-panelment and review of performance of valuer, etc". 1)Why the instructions on engagement, allotment of work, payment of fees etc. are not followed and (2) copy of order for deviation to faster valuer-more valuations policy?
r. Based on VMS, performance of each valuer must be done annually. Provide copy of my performance and all other valuers from 2013, available in VMS including TAT of valuers." etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. "Furnishing of reasons as to why a particular step should not be taken does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to furnish reply to your query.
ii. The observations made in audit report would fall in the category of information involving commercial confidence and therefore we are of the view that the same is an exempted information as per Section 8(d) of RTI Act. Moreover, we also inform that on verification we could not also trace out the concurrent audit queries which are made in online mode.
iii. a) 20.10.2020
b) As per RTI Act, the CPIO is expected to furnish only data which is available and is not expected to compile and furnish data. The data as sought by you is not maintained by the Bank and hence, we are not in a position to furnish to you the information sought by you.
c) As per RTI Act, the CPIO is expected to furnish only data which is available and is not expected to compile and furnish data. The data as sought by you is not maintained by the Bank and hence, we are not in a position to furnish to you the information sought by you.
d) Nil, as per information available.Page 8 of 15
e) Query does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the Act as the same is in the form of seeking an opinion of the CPIO.
f) Giving explanation by comparing two formats does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to furnish reply to the query as per the provisions of RTI Act.
iv. a. Copy of engagement letter has not been kept by the Bank. The name of the customer is Holy Props industries.
b. The copy of the documents sought by you are documents pertaining to property of a customer / third party and hence furnishing of such information is exempted under Section 8(e) and (j) of the Act.
c. Copy of valuation report enclosed.
d. Based on recent valuation report obtained and after verifying the relevant details of property.
e. 30.06.2022 f. The details of loan granted to Bank's customers is an information which available to the Bank in its fiduciary relationship with the customer. Hence, disclosure of the said information is exempted as per Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a Position to provide the information sought by you. g. As per record, no action is seen taken against you as per available records. h. Seeking reasons as to why a particular action was not done does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
i. Seeking reasons as to why a particular act was done does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
j. Seeking reasons as to why a particular act was done does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
Page 9 of 15k. Query as to how a problem was solved does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
l. Nil v. No such communication could be traced out.
a & b. The reply was sent for complaint received by DGM, Operations, SME, Corporate Centre based on the instructions dated 19.11.2022 received from AGM (Customer Care), LHO, a copy of which is attached c. Furnishing of explanation as sought by you does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to furnish reply.
d. Specific date not seen recorded in any of the records available at RASMECCC. e, f, g, h & i. Available records do not show that reply was sent to the letters. j. Seeking reasons as to why a particular act was not done or why the same was done in a particular manner does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query. k. Copy of letters dated 03.09.2021 annexed l. Seeking reasons as to why a particular act was not done does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
m. Seeking reasons as to why a particular act was not done in a particular manner does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
n. Seeking reasons as to why a particular act was not done in a particular manner does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
o. Seeking reasons as to why a particular code was not followed, does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
Page 10 of 15p. Seeking reasons as to how a particular act was not done in a particular manner does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RTI Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
q. Seeking reasons as to why a particular act has not been done does not come within the ambit of information as defined in the RT! Act. Hence, we are not in a position to reply to your query.
r. The data pertaining to your query is not available at our end. Further we also inform that data relating to performance of other valuers also fall within the ambit of information which is exempt from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act..."
2.1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 19.07.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.2 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.10.2023.
3. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Prasad Rao, Asstt. GM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The Appellant submitted that he has although received most of the information but is aggrieved with the denial of some of the information on flimsy grounds in both the cases.
5. The Respondent reiterated the replies provided to the Appellant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the information sought for in the RTI Application is largely asking for clarifications, deductions based on interrogative as well as speculative queries, none of which conforms to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Similarly, the RTI Application also fails to conform to the word limit prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012 while also expecting the CPIO to deduce and collect inputs on a multitude of queries requiring disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority as per Section Page 11 of 15 7(9) of the RTI Act. In the facts of the instant case, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.'
7. Similarly, for better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include Page 12 of 15 deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:Page 13 of 15
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Page 14 of 15
8. Notwithstanding the foregoing infirmities contained in the RTI Application, the CPIO has replied to the mammoth queries in a categorical, point-wise and cogent manner while also invoking the relevant exemptions of the RTI Act wherever applicable, thus leaving no scope of any intervention in the matter. The said observations render the instant appeal as completely bereft of merit and the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in the future.
9. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 06.05.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
State Bank of India,
AGM & CPIO,
Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises City Credit Centre (RASMECCC), M. G. Road, Kannur, Kerala-670001
2. Rathnakaran Kumbakkudi Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)