Central Information Commission
Mr.C L Kapoor vs State Bank Of India on 22 November, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000458AT
Dated, the 22 November, 2010.
nd
Appellants : Shri C.L. Kapoor
Respondent : State Bank of India, Mumbai
s This matter was heard on 09.11.2010 pursuant to Commission's notice dated 21.10.2010. Appellant was present in person, while the respondents were represented by Shri A.T. Thorat, AGM (Law) and Ms.Neelam Upadhyay, Chief Manager (PPG).
2. This is one of the series of petitions appellant has been filing about certain schemes started a long time ago when the State Bank of India was known as the Imperial Bank of India. Appellant apparently has certain concerns about the management of the Provident Fund started by the Imperial Bank of India. Through the present RTIapplication, appellant has asked for the following information: "1. Please inform me the reason of not spending the balance of Rs.3.95 crores in the IBI Provident Fund forfeiture A/c. Is the Scheme circulated by the State Bank Withdrawer? If not, when it is likely to be implemented. Are there any other arrangements to utilize the balance.
2. ............ Please supply me the original Rules certified by the State Bank. The amendments made to the original rules be supplied separately. Please advice me the authority of Rewriting the original Rules.
CIC_SM_A_2010_000458_M_46058.doc Page 1 of 5
3. ........... If the appointment is under Central Govt Order the copy of such Order should be supplied."
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 27.01.2010 and the Appellate Authority, in his order dated 15.02.2010, furnished to the appellant the replies. The reply furnished by the CPIO to each point raised in appellant's RTIapplication read as follows: " The reasoning asked for is not covered under the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act2005. The IBI Employees Provident Fund Forfeiture Account Scheme was in operation for the year 200607 only.
No new scheme envisaged as on date.
IBI Employees' Pension & Guarantee Fund - Rules and
Regulations are now available in Bank's website - www.statebankofindia.com - Corporate Governance - RTI Act 2005.
The Central Government representative and RBI representative are nominated in the capacity of Director on the Bank's Central Board, vide Rule 3 of the "IBI Employees' Pension & Guarantee Fund - Rules."
IBI Pension and Guarantee Fund is being maintained by the Trustees of the Fund in accordance with the Rules and Regulations framed (and modified / amended) in pursuance of the SBI Act, 1995.
No such specific order is available with the bank."
CIC_SM_A_2010_000458_M_46058.doc Page 2 of 5
4. Appellant has now challenged the replies on the grounds that these were not factually correct.
5. Appellant has made the following points: "1. The information sought is for spending the balance of Rs.3.95 (crores) in the IBI Provident fund forfeiture account. It is the trust property. Its end use or disposal was enquired by me. The administration of the Imperial Bank of India Trust is vested in the Trustees. They formulated the scheme to spend the entire balance in the Imperial Bank of India Provident Fund Forfeiture Account. The Trustees are under an obligation to distribute Trust property only to the beneficiaries who are actually entitled to it. The scheme to spend the entire balance was formulated and circulated to the members of IBI Provident Fund. The circumstances under which it was abandoned must be advised. In any circumstance, it is their duty to inform me the end use unspent balance in the Imperial Bank of India Provident Fund Forfeiture Account. The Trust's decision to spend the entire balance not been followed and reason for not implementing it should be advised.
2. In terms of Central Information Commission order dated 4th May 2010 which has been partly complied with, The Imperial Bank of India pension and guarantee fund rules traced in the Banking History book have now been supplied to me. The amendments made are yet to be provided. The rules in use are different from the original rules supplied to me. Apparently the rules have been rewritten. I wanted the authority for altering the text in the Re writing of Rules. In case SBI act 1955 allowed in the rewriting / changes of rules, the clauses under which it was done should be advised.
CIC_SM_A_2010_000458_M_46058.doc Page 3 of 5
3. The original Trustees of IBI Pension fund were changed when the IBI Pension fund was entrusted to SBI under SBI Act 1955. I wanted the information as to how the change of Trustees has taken place. The central government representative and RBI representative are also made Trustees of IBI Pension Fund. I sought information about their appointment as Trustees of IBI Pension Fund when appointed as Central Board Directors."
6. It is obvious from the averments of the appellant that he has been seeking clarifications from the State Bank of India about the use of the balance of Rs.3.95 crores in the IBI Provident Fund Forfeiture Account which was the trust property. He also wants to know as to how the Imperial Bank of India Pension and Guarantee Fund Rules were amended and with whose authority. He wants copies of the rewritten Rules. He has also sought information regarding the appointment of Trustees.
7. It is fairly obvious that the appellant is engaged in a long dialogue with the SBI about the Provident Fund started by the Imperial Bank of India. The CPIO has provided to him the documents as he could find these. He has understandably declined to enter into an exchange with him about why Trustees did not take a certain decision, or the authority through which certain Rules were amended. It would be incorrect on the part of the CPIO to conjecture about those situations as depicted by the appellant. This matter being so old, is also partly responsible for absence of the material appellant is seeking.
8. However, if the appellant wishes to inspect the records held in regard to his concerns by the State Bank of India, he may seek inspection by filing a proper application before the CPIO. His request shall be considered by the CPIO if it is made within two weeks and appellant shall be allowed to inspect the records on a day and time which will be CIC_SM_A_2010_000458_M_46058.doc Page 4 of 5 intimated to him within one week of his filing the request for inspection. The entire process will be completed within four weeks.
9. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CIC_SM_A_2010_000458_M_46058.doc Page 5 of 5