M. D. Rajanna vs State Bank Of India on 6 October, 2021

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

M. D. Rajanna vs State Bank Of India on 6 October, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 13.05.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 14.02.2019 and first appeal dated 21.03.2019:-

 The documents sought under RTI regarding the audit report for having financial assistance given by the government towards agricultural development and its audit report under Company Act 1956. Sec.226, 227, 228 and verified by the chartered accountant which is sought under central RTI 2005 sec 4/1a, as per Indian Evidence Act 1872 Sec. 76.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 14.02.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 3 Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Mandya, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.02.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 21.03.2019 The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 10.04.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 13.05.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 13.05.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.02.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:

"In this regard, you are requested to visit our website for the information sought. You may visit www.sbi.co.in- Important links-Regulatory Disclosures- Financial Results- Annual Reports. All the mandatory regulatory disclosures are published in the above mentioned site."

The FAA held that the information which was already available in public domain need not be furnished again and that the CPIO had duly replied to the queries raised by the appellant.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Sandhya A.K., Regional Manager & CPIO, State Bank of India, Mandya attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case and while endorsing their reply dated 26.02.2019 inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant was available in the public domain and the relevant links were provided to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that due reply was given vide CPIO's Page 2 of 3 letter dated 26.02.2019. Perusal of the records revealed that the information sought by the appellant was already available in the public domain and the information which was already placed in public domain may not be considered to be under the custody of the public authority. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objection being filed on his behalf, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 04.10.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE MANDYA (40595), P.B. NO. 1, 1ST FLOOR, VISVESHWARAIAH ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-II), STATE BANK OF INDIA, 65, ST. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 SH. M. D. RAJANNA Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission