Sunil Keshwani vs State Bank Of India on 7 October, 2019

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sunil Keshwani vs State Bank Of India on 7 October, 2019

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                 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/2017/114176

Sunil Keshwani                                                ... अपीलकता /Appellant


                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम

CPIO: State Bank of
India, Regional
Business Office,                                           ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Region-I, Indore.

                                     ORDER

(24.09.2019)

1. The issue under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance of CIC's order dated 13.06.2018 in this matter.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.09.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Region-I, Indore seeking information pertaining to complete details of CIF no. xxxxxxx2612 and complete details relating to transfer of Smt. Tulsi Narayan Das Khungarani's FDR nos. xxxxxxxx5874, xxxxxxx0285, xxxxxxxxx7400 and xxxxxxxxx7401. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.10.2016 denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant field first appeal on 05.11.2016. The FAA vide order dated 16.11.2016 Page 1 of 4 upheld the CPIO's reply. Aggrieved by this appellant filed second appeal dated 27.02.2017 before this Commission which was heard and decided by this Commission on 13.06.2018 and inter alia the following directions were passed.

"6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant is seeking information pertaining to the bank accounts and FDs of his deceased wife. As per the appellant, the CPIO had denied the information sought under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. The Commission notes that a husband is entitled to receive information about the bank accounts and FDs of his deceased wife. However, the information seeker should produce supporting document (s) to show that he is the legal heir of the deceased account holder to get the information regarding the accounts of the deceased. The Commission further notes that as per section 15 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956:

15 (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16

(a) Firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

Thus, in case, late Smt. Tulsi Narayan Das Khungarani had died intestate then the appellant and his two minor children are legal heirs of the deceased. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide the information to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of a document form the appellant certifying that late Smt. Tulsi Narayan Das Khungarani had died without a will as well as the document to establish that the appellant is legal heir/authorised by the other legal heirs to obtain information regarding the accounts of late Smt. Tulsi Narayan Das Khungarani."

3. The appellant vide letter dated 11.09.2018 filed a non-compliance of the order of the Commission.

Page 2 of 4

4. In compliance of the order of the Commission, the CPIO vide letter dated 18.07.2018 replied to the appellant that on the basis of the documents submitted by the appellant, it was not established that he was the legal heir of the deceased Smt. Smt. Tulsi Narayan Das Khungarani. The documents submitted by the appellant did not contain the clear signatures of other legal heirs nor was the document certified by any court of law.

5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, feels that proper reply has already been provided by the respondent vide letter dated 18.07.2018 in compliance of the order dated 13.06.2018 of the Commission. In view of this the Commission finds that there is no merit in the complaint filed by the appellant for non-compliance, hence, the same is dismissed.

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

Suresh Chandra (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 24.09.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES:

THE CPIO, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, REGION OFFICE, REGION-I, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH-452001.

SHRI SUNIL KESHWANI Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission