Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mahesh Chand Gupta vs State Bank Of India on 20 May, 2024

                                       के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                    बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                  नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/617281

Mahesh Chand Gupta                                                ... अपीलकताग/Appellant



                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
 CPIO: SBI, Mumbai
                                                               ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 26.12.2022                 FA    : 24.01.2023               SA     : 04.04.2023

 CPIO : 21.01.2023                FAO : 22.02.2023                 Hearing : 17.05.2024


Date of Decision: 17.05.2024

                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Para (I) of Annexure of SBI e-Circular No. CDD/P&HRD-PM/41/2018-19 dated 28 Sept 2018 states that No Employee of the Ba/promote any Group/Community on any internet site which uses the name or logo of State Bank of India/SBI or shall become or community unless such group is expressly created or permitted by the Bank. It is requested to provide the list of Groups/permitted by the Bank Page 1 of 4 on any internet site or Instant Messaging Apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook, etc.

(ii) It is requested to provide the list of Groups/Community which uses name or logo of State Bank of India/SBI, created/operated the Bank on any internet site or Instant Messaging Apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook, etc.

(iii) Para 58(1) of SBIOSR states that No Officer shall absent himself from his duty or be late in attending office or leave obtained the permission of the authority empowered to sanction leave. It is requested to provide the certify copy of policy purpose of Rural, Semi-urban, Urban along with permissible distance for commuting from the place of posting.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Point (i) & (ii) - The query is hypothetical and in the nature of seeking opinion/ clarification and hence does not fall within the ambit of information as defined in section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.

Further, as per the RTI Act the CPIO is required to provide information as exists in record in material form and it is beyond the scope of the RTI Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicant.

Point (iii) - No such information or data as regards the broad subject matter sought by the medium of this query is maintained by this Public Authority."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.02.2023 directed the respondent to revisit the RTI application and reply in terms of the fact whether any information is held by them or not.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.04.2023.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Saurav Ghosh, Deputy General Manager and CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought hypothetical queries in his RTI application and the same was not covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent authority reiterated that the information sought by the appellant was not maintained by them in due course of business and it required speculation at their end to respond to hypothetical queries raised in the RTI application. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 17.05.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO State Bank of India, DGM (P & PMD) & CPIO, Policy and Pensioners Management Department, Corporate Centre, 16th Floor State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400021 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)