Central Information Commission
Eapen Thomas vs State Bank Of India on 9 August, 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/2023/116646
Eapen Thomas ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Palakkad ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.10.2022 FA : 08.12.2022 SA : 01.04.2023
CPIO : 07.01.2023 FAO : 29.12.2022 Hearing : 07.08.2024
Date of Decision: 08.08.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Detailed statement of Accounts incorporating Account Number, Principal amount, Interest rate, term, maturity value, maturity amount, value date, amounts pertaining to taxes deducted at source, the dates of deduction there- of and whether these deducted taxes were transferred to the Government department and dates thereof and the name of the said department and in whose name the TDS have been transferred. After maturity of one deposit the amount Page 1 of 6 reinvested after deduction of taxes becomes the next Principal amount. All the details mentioned above with regard to the first deposit from its initial term has to be repeated for the renewed deposits also till closure of the deposits. All such details have to be furnished for both the Term deposits from the initial date of deposit in the 1970's. The information sought for shall be furnished in a proforma format for the two deposits separately in ascending sequence of time and not in a haphazard manner with the intention to sup- press details. The two term deposits are those mentioned in letter No. D 758/21 dt 30.10.2021 of the Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta which were send to the Chief Manager of SBI Ottapalam Branch on 08.11.2021.
(ii) The information regarding the amounts constituting 80% and 20% of the proceeds after closure of both the two deposits individually and in total credit-
ed into the two A/c's as mentioned by the Sub Judge in the order and the date thereof.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.12.2022. The FAA's order dated 29.12.2022 directed the respondent to provide information to the appellant as provision of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. The CPIO has complied with FA order vide letter dated 07.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point (i) - The TDS deducted from STD No. 10641451927 (reopened as STD 38352514367) for the period 24-01-2008 to 11-11-2021 is Rs. 2,42,887/-.
The TDS deducted from STD 10641451983 for the period 20-11-2006 to 11-11- 2021 is Rs. 59,583/-
Point (ii) - The deposits were closed on 11-11-2021 and the total proceeds of Rs. 31,10,699/- was credited in 80:20 ratio as per direction of Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta as below:-Page 2 of 6
80% i.e. Rs. 24,88,559.20 credited to A/C No: 110017499718 of Canara Bank, Pathanamthitta Branch.
20% i.e. Rs. 6,22, 139.80 credited to A/c No. 67358594498 of SBI, Kudappanakunnu Branch."
4. Aggrieved with the reply received as part of compliance of FA order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 01.04.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Anu R Reghurajan, Regional Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply which had been furnished was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that due to non- receipt of email, through which the RTI application was filed, the CPIO concerned failed to reply to the RTI application within the stipulated time frame. However, after the first appeal, a response to the RTI application had been furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 07.01.2023, wherein, all available information had been provided to the appellant. A written submission of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
2. It is submitted that all the allegations made against the respondent are denied as they are Incorrect and without any basis. The present second appeal is devoid of any merits and hence liable to be dismissed for the reasons detailed in the following paragraphs.
3. Brief Background of the RTI Application: It is observed that some disputes are going on between the appellant and his relatives regarding some property from the year 1958 onwards. In this connection in the year 2021 Sub Court, Pattanamthitta has issued a letter to our Ottapalam Branch directing to release 20% of the entire amount due till date to the decree holders in EP No. 4/2015 and 80% of the entire amount due till date to the decree holders in EP No. 77/2015. The Appellant is a Page 3 of 6 decree holder in EP 04/2015. The deposits were closed on 11.11.2021 and the total proceeds were credited in 80:20 ratio as per the order issued by Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta. The appellant has filed the RTI application seeking the details of these 10641451927 and 10641451983 accounts. Though the information is related to the account of third parties, considering the connection of the appellant to the said court case, CPIO has provided all the available information related to these accounts.
4. The Appellant, has submitted the RTI application dated 06/11/2021 to the CAPIO seeking statement of accounts of 10641451927 and 10641451983 accounts pertains to the decree holder of EP 4/2015 & EP 77/2015. In the detailed RTI application dated 06.11.2021 the appellant has raised so many issues which is totally confusing.
The five queries raised by the appellant was very complex and all of these queries having multiple sub-queries seeking voluminous information. As these information was not readily available, we had taken significant effort and hard work to compile and prepare the data required by the appellant. The appellant has asked the details of these fixed deposits from the year 1972 onwards and all the details of Its renewals and the details of TDS deducted in each year Though it was a herculean task, we have complied and provided the details TDS of these FDs from the year 2008 to 2021 and also provided the account statements for the period 25/01/05 01/05/2020 for A/c 10641451927 and 21/11/2003 30/11/2021 for A/c 10641451983.
5. The appellant sent the application through email to the CAPIO and the CAPIO has failed to forward the RTI application to the CPIO and the CPIO could not reply to the RTI application filed by the applicant within the stipulated time frame of 30 days. In this regard CPIO also wish to state that CAPIO has been suitably advised to adhere to the laid down time frame in attending to RTI applications.
6. The Appellant had filed appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act before the first Appellate Authority on 08/12/2022 on the ground that the CPIO has rejected the application under Sec 8 & 9 of the Act.
Page 4 of 67. The First Appellate Authority vide Order dated 29/12/2022 has disposed the RTI application with a finding that the CPIO is directed to provide requisite reply to the original RTI application and the same may be sent to the appellant by registered post. The CPIO has complied the order by providing the requisite details to the applicant on 07.01.2023. Further, the Bank is not subscribed to various contentions and averments that the appellant has made against the Bank in the RTI application and appeal. As the purpose of the RTI Act is not for entertaining such matters, CPIO not inclined to comment further on the same.
8. The Bank has already attended all the above RTI application and Appeals. Whatever information in the matter that can be shared with the Appellant was already provided to the Appellant.
9. Vague RTI applications will amount to clogging the office of public authority and CPIO would be justified even in refusing to entertain such RTI applications for sufficient reasons. Such applications would amount to obstructing the free flow of information to deserving and genuine RTI Applicants, besides preventing the officers of the Public Authority from performing their other normal duties attached to the office. The present appeal and the connected RTI application is a misuse of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that due to non-receipt of email, through which the RTI application was filed, the CPIO concerned failed to reply to the RTI application within the stipulated time frame. After the First Appeal, the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 07.01.2023. The Commission notes that the RTI application of the appellant was so confusing and not as per the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Even then the CPIO has facilitated the appellant with the available information in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act.
Page 5 of 609. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
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: 08.08.2024
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. CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005)
State Bank of India, Regional Business
Office, 2nd Floor, Parakkal Bhawan,
Post Office Road, Shoranur,
Palakkad Distt - 679121
2. Eapen Thomas
Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)