Mohammed Sadatullah Khan vs State Bank Of India on 30 April, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mohammed Sadatullah Khan vs State Bank Of India on 30 April, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 28.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 18.01.2018and first appeal dated 02.02.2018:-

Page 1 of 5

(i) Statement of account no. xxxxx43109 belonging to Shri Mohd Noorullah Khan (deceased) at SBI, Nizamabad main branch (20108), claimed to be the uncle of the appellant.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Varni Road, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 01.02.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.02.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.02.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 28.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 28.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had rejected the information unreasonably and that he did demand for withdrawal of amount lying in the account of the deceased uncle.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.02.2018 denied the information under section 8 (1)

(d), (e) and (j) of RTI Act. The FAA directed the CPIO to provide the information subject to production of a document by the appellant to establish that the appellant was the legal heir of the deceased account holder.

Hearing on 10.01.2020 4.1. The appellant and on behalf the respondent, Shri J.B. Subramaniam, Asstt. General Manager and Shri Neeraj Kumar, Law Officer, State Bank of India Nizamabad attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim order (dated 10.01.2020) 4.2. The Commission has passed the following directions on 10.01.2020:

Page 2 of 5

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the respondent have defied the direction of the First Appellate Authority and despite the appellant having submitted the legal heir certificate, the CPIO has not furnished the information so far. Besides, the CPIO has remained absent without seeking leave and the representatives of the CPIO have failed to assist the Commission properly. In view of this, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue show cause notice to Shri Pratap Reddy, present CPIO and Shri Anand Vardhaman, the then CPIO, to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act for not furnishing the information. The preset CPIO is under obligation to serve this order on the then CPIO and secure his explanation. The respondent is also directed that complete information be made available to the appellant within ten days from date of receipt of this order. All written submissions must reach the Commission within 21 days."

Hearing on 24.04.2020

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Pratap Reddy, Regional Manager & CPIO, State Bank of India, Nizamabad attended the hearing through teleconference.

5.1 The appellant while presenting his case inter alia submitted that information sought by him was not provided by the respondent so far. He argued that the respondent had repeatedly denying the information on the ground of third party information. The appellant informed that he had also submitted the death certificate of his uncle and his affidavit with the Bank. The appellant stated that he was one of the six legal successors of his uncle, hence, entitled for the information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought could not be provided to the appellant as he had neither submitted any legal heir certificate nor any affidavit from remaining legal successors till date. They further informed the Commission that this fact was also communicated by the official of the bank in the last hearing. However, due to some technical error in the video conferencing, the communication could not be made properly and it was interpreted that the appellant had submitted the legal heir certificate. They stated that being a CPIO, it Page 3 of 5 was necessary for him to identify the legal position of the bank seeking information so that the information would not be misused. They also tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused in this matter

6. The Commission after adverting to the fact and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that no legal heir certificate has been submitted by the appellant so far and in the absence of such certificate the appellant is not entitled for the information sought. In view of this, the respondent is directed to provide the information subject to the receipt of the legal heir certificate or on production of affidavits of all other legal successors by the appellant.The above information is to be given within three weeks from the date of receipt of said documents from the appellant.

6.1. Perusal of the records further reveals that there was no mala fide on part of the respondent and no conscious or deliberate attempt was made to withhold the information sought by the appellant. In view of the aforementioned reasons and absence of mala fide on the part of the CPIO, there appears to be no reasonable ground for imposition of penalty. Therefore, the show cause notice issued to Shri Pratap Reddy, present CPIO and Shri Anand Vardhaman, the then CPIO, State bank of India, RBO, Nizamabad, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 27.04.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE D.NO. 10-03-435, VARNI ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, NIZAMABAD-503001 MOHAMMED SADATULLAH KHAN Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission