Sudhir Kumar Telang vs State Bank Of India on 7 August, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sudhir Kumar Telang vs State Bank Of India on 7 August, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the Complaint dated 22.06.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 05.04.2018 and first appeal dated nil:-

(i) When a card holder does online transaction with Indian or Foreign website what system and procedure is adopted. Please explain the procedure along with relevant instructions. How the double authentication system works?

Page 1 of 4

(ii) Instructions and procedure as to how one time password (OTP) is transmitted to a registered mobile of a card holder during online transactions.

(iii) How the double authentication system works for payment to foreign web site as well Indian website on line transactions. Are there any instructions foreign website on line transactions displayed with guidelines in SBI Card website? Please send details thereof.

(iv) It is presumed that only when OTP is received on mobile and 4 digit password is fed/entered in 3D screen cages and clicked confirm/submit then only payment amount is sent to foreign/Indian vendor and charged to card for payment. if OTP is not received, transaction will not be completed and no payment is charged to my card i.e. OTP is instantly sent to cardholder mobile for authentication of transaction.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 05.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not give reply. Dissatisfied with the non-response of the CPIO, the appellant filed a Complaint dated 22.06.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 22.06.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not reply/provide the information within prescribed time limit.

4. The CPIO did not reply.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Pawan Kumar, Senior Vice President,(Legal), SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited, Delhi, attended the hearing through audio conference.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had requested for information relating to online transaction carried out through Indian or Foreign website and generation of OTP in those transactions but the respondent had not provided any information so far.

5.2. The respondent submitted that SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd. was a private limited company and was not covered within the scope and ambit of section 2 (h) of RTI Act, hence, they were not under an obligation to provide the information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, feels that prima facie the appellant erroneously addressed letter dated 25.05.2018 titled "First Appeal under section 19 (1) of RTI Act" to the First Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission which is not the appropriate authority to adjudicate first appeals. The appellant further removed the deficiency and filed an appeal dated 22.06.2018 before this Commission and requested to direct the CPIO to provide the information. In view of the relief sought by the appellant, petition dated 22.06.2018 may be considered as a second appeal. Further, it may be noted that the RTI application is in form of questions seeking clarifications and not in form of seeking specific information from the respondent authority which are not covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of RTI Act. That being so, the Commission is not inclined to examine the substantial question of law as to whether SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd. is a public authority or not under section 2 (h) of RTI Act. In SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Arun Kumar Verma & Ors, the High Court of Delhi while dealing with a similar matter made the following observations in its order dated 12.07.2010:

"..it is not necessary to determine the question of Law whether the SBI Cards is a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. That question can be left open for being decided in an appropriate case. Consequently, it is clarified' that the impugned order dated 7th September 2007 of the CIC holding SBI Cards to be a public authority will not constitute a precedent either for any Page 3 of 4 other case against the SBI Cards before the CIC or in this court. The question is left open for decision in an appropriate case"

In view of the above, there appears to be no larger public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 05.08.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( आर.

सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक ) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

SBI CARDS & PAYMENT SERVICES Pvt.Ltd. DLF INFINITY TOWERS, TOWERS-C, 12TH FLOOR, BLOCK - 2, BUILDING - 3, DLF CYBER CITY, GURUGRAM - 122 002 SUDHIR KUMAR TELANG Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission