Central Information Commission
Shri Dileep Kumar Gupta vs State Bank Of India, Lucknow & Faizabad on 22 September, 2009
Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00763-SM & CIC/SM/C/2008/00022
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 22 September 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri Dileep Kumar Gupta, Hansa Sweets, Near Navin Mandi, Dev Nagar Colony, Rae Bareilly Road, Faizabad (U.P) Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India, Head Office, Lucknow (U.P).
CPIO, State Bank of India, Chowk Branch, Faizabad (U.P) The Complainant was represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri S.K. Asthana, Manager (Law) was present.
2. The Complainant has filed two separate complaints against the CPIO concerned. We have clubbed both the cases together for hearing. The brief facts are as under.
3. In one of these two complaint cases (763), the Complainant had requested the CPIO on June 3, 2008 for a number of information regarding a particular account, presumably concerning the loan sanctioned to him under the PMRY. The CPIO replied on July 23, 2008 and provided the desired information along with the photocopies of the relevant records. Alleging that he did not receive any reply from the CPIO within 48 hours, he sent two more communications, one addressed to the AGM and the other to the DGM of the State Bank of India complaining that the CPIO failed to give him the CIC/PB/C/2008/00763-SM & CIC/SM/C/2008/00022 requested information. Later, he approached the Central Information Commission on July 11, 2008 with the present complaint.
4. Both the parties were present during the hearing. We heard their submissions. In this case, we found that the CPIO had responded nearly in time and had provided point-wise information including the photocopies of the relevant documents. While the Complainant admits to have received this information, he finds some of the information provided to him incomplete and inadequate. He had especially wanted to get a photocopy of the guideline/circular by which the Reserve Bank of India had fixed the interest rate, from time to time, on PMRY loans. The CPIO had informed that it was not the RBI but the Bank itself which was competent to fix such interest rates. Secondly, in response to the Complainant's request to explain the discrepancy between the figures communicated to the Collector and to him, the CPIO had given certain explanation which the Complainant finds unclear. Finally, the Complainant had wanted to know the basis for accepting direct deposits into his loan account even after the Bank had issued the RC. The CPIO's reply that the deposits into his account, after the issue of the RC, were made through the collection Amin was contested by the Complainant on the ground that the Bank had indeed accepted some deposits directly from him for which he possessed money receipts from the Branch.
5. In view of the above, we think that the CPIO needs to clarify the above discrepancies urgently to set the doubts of the Complaint to rest. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Complainant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the following information:-
(i) a copy of the Circulars/Guidelines of the Bank laying down the interest rates on PMRY loans from time to time;
(ii) a copy of the relevant statement/record from the Branch showing the total interest on his loan account as on the date of the issue of the RC; and
(iii) explanation/clarification on accepting deposits from the Complainant as on March 16 and March 28 against the loan account even after the issue of the RC on March 5, 2008;
CIC/PB/C/2008/00763-SM & CIC/SM/C/2008/00022
6. In the other case (22), the Respondent submitted that the original application of the Complainant had not been received in the office of the CPIO at all even though it had been sent by speed post. This seems somewhat unusual because normally letters sent by speed post are delivered to the addressee very urgently. However, since the Respondent claims not to have received a copy of the request for information, we provided a copy to him during the hearing itself. We now direct the CPIO to provide to the Complainant the desired information, point-wise along with photocopy of the relevant documents/records within 15 working days from the receipt of this order.
7. With the above directions, both the complaints are disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/PB/C/2008/00763-SM & CIC/SM/C/2008/00022