Central Information Commission
Ram Gopinath Mane vs State Bank Of India on 30 September, 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. (As per Annexure)
Ram Gopinath Mane ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Solapur ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of FA Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO First Order Second
No. Application reply Appeal Appeal
1 122508 10.02.2023 16.02.2023 Not on 18.04.2023 15.05.2023
record
2 122504 10.02.2023 10.03.2023 21.03.2023 18.04.2023 15.05.2023
3 122505 10.02.2023 10.03.2023 21.03.2023 18.04.2023 15.05.2023
4 122506 10.02.2023 10.03.2023 21.03.2023 18.04.2023 15.05.2023
5 122507 10.02.2023 10.03.2023 Not on 18.04.2023 15.05.2023
record
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal(s) have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Date of Hearing: 26.09.2024
Date of Decision: 30.09.2024
Page 1 of 9
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application(s) dated 10.02.2023 seeking information on the following points with respect to 5 branches of the Respondent bank:-
"The copy of the letter given by the Hon'ble District Collector and District Magistrate to bank for opening of account in the name of 'Tahsildar and Sanjay Gandhi Yojana Solapur, along with copy of letter of authority given in favour of Mr. Ravindra Annarao Konapure, Clerk from collector office Solapur.
(i) What was operation mandate given in the account?
(ii) For big amount cross verification over phone was done in the past. Whether
the State Bank of India, Mangalwedha; Karmala; Madha; Akkalkot; Solapur Treasury Branch followed the due procedure by cross verifying over phone with collector office Solapur? If yes, then which are documents bank has taken on record?
(iii) Whether the account from where money is usurped and accounts where money was parked/transferred, were inexistence in actual? If yes, then which are the documents bank has taken on record?
(iv) What was the account balance in above mentioned accounts by each month end for the period of Oct 2005 to May 2006?
(v) Details of names, designations and address of bank employees who transferred and allowed withdrawal of amount lying in the above mentioned accounts."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter(s) dated 16.02.2023 & 10.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point (i) to (iv) & (vi) - The information you have requested is third party information which is held by the bank in fiduciary capacity hence same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 1(e) and (f) as per RTI Act, 2005.Page 2 of 9
Point (v)- The query is ambiguous in nature"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2023. The FAA's order dated 18.04.2023 held as under:
"I find that the Applicant is not connected to the account regarding which he is seeking information. Therefore, he remains a third party to the said account. Therefore, the information sought by the applicant is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as this information is available to the Bank in its fiduciary capacity."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.05.2023 stating inter alia as under:
"2. The appellant was working as Tahasildar, North Solapur Tahasil in Solapur District during period 2004 to 2006.
3. Mr. Ravindra Annarao Konapure was clerk working at District Collector Office Solapur and he was solely looking after and co-ordinating with other subordinate offices (Additional Collectors, Deputy Collectors, Tahasildars, Residential Tahasildars, etc. regarding the scheme of "Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana' and its implementation in the Solapur District.
4. The residual amount remained after distributing to the beneficiaries were used to hand over to the District Collector Office Solapur (Sanjay Gandhi NiradharYojana Branch)' through bearer cheque as per the written directions of the Additional Collector Solapur.
5. There was a fraud took place in Solapur District wrt to the amount to be transferred back to the District Collector Office, as mentioned in point no. 4.
6. The fraud was perpetrated by the Mr. Ravindra Annarao Konapure in connivance and hand in glove with the employees of State Bank of India's Treasury Branch."
xxx "f. The reference and resorting to the section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO and by the FAA is dubious since it is not getting violated by denying the information sought Page 3 of 9 but rather it gets strengthened by disclosing the information. The reference and resorting to the section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act by the CPIO and by the FAA is dubious since the relation between SBI which is Government owned bank established under separate act passed by the legislature and the account under reference is Government Account opened for implementation of the welfare scheme. The CPIO and the FAA overlooked following key aspects and failed to appreciate the spirit of the legislature behind enactment of the RTI Act."
xxx "i. If the information will be given then it will help in investigation of the fraud took place. It is pertinent to focus on fact that "Who is the real beneficiary, in whose account the money was transferred to ascertain the culprits in usurping of the public money.
ii. The account is in the name of Government and District Collectorate is part and parcel of Government functioning. The principle of "Fiduciary Relationship" is not applicable to Government Accounts where the Public Money is involved.
iii. Moreover the CPIO and the FAA are part of SBI which in-turn is the Government bank itself. The appellant being Indian Citizen has every rights to get the information pertaining to the public money.
iv. Government is Not individual or corporate entity to hide use of public money when the information sought is to be disclosed in public interest.
v. No Prejudice will be caused to the Government by disclosing the information sought.
vi. What has happened in this account i.e, the transactions and with the account i.e. the opening and operations in the account needs to be brought in the public domain to protect public interest and Government.
vii. The transactions of the Government dealing in public money needs to be transparent.
viii. The account under reference was utilized for beneficiaries of the "Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana for their subsistence. The transactions in this account and its operation are Not of commercial in nature and does not attract commercial confidence..."
Page 4 of 95. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Dinesh Rao, Chief Manager & Rep. of CPIO along with Nikhil, Law Officer attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant stated that the denial of the information by the CPIO is not appropriate for the reasons as explained in the grounds of second appeal reproduced above. He further alleged that earlier also where similar information was ordered to be provided by the Commission, the Respondent have turned a blind eye.
7. The Respondent argued on the lines of their written submissions stating as under:
"Mr. Mane has not informed this Hon'ble Commission that he had made similar RTI Application for Solapur Treasury Branch before CPIO Pune and Information Commissioner Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta vide Order dated 12.12.2022 has passed a decision already on the matter.
This crucial fact was deliberately concealed before this forum while preferring this second appeal. The mere fact there is concealment of such order shows that Mr. Mane has not approached this Commission with clean hands hence same shall looked into by this Hon'ble Commission while passing any order in the matter. Further, the RTI Applications in all the appeals are made in February 2023 after the December 2022 Order hence these applications are an afterthought of such Order.
As discussion above while perusing the RTI Applications in Appeal No. 122504, 122505, 122506 and 122508 it appears that similar information is sought again in the same format merely changing branch name and duration of transactions (Fill in the Banks) and such information is being sought in piece meal so as to keep the matter alive once the official stand of the bank was known and decision of Commission was already on record. Further for Appeal No. 1220507 (Solapur Treasury branch) same information on which adjudication is already done is sought which is not permissible.Page 5 of 9
If the prayer of the RTI Applicant is looked into it is seen that the RTI Applicant is seeking information which does not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 and the nature of relief is more in terms of allegations of fraud against the Officials and such reliefs (if are allegations are true and proved as per law) can only be provided by 'Competent Court of Law' after following due procedure. The Bombay High Court under 'Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. Central Information Commission And Anr' [Writ Petition No. 15367 of 2023] has held that there is no power vested any authority under the RTI Act to adjudicate or fix any responsibility or to conduct any inquiry which is the jurisdiction of investigating agencies.
The Appellant has sought information related to operation of account of one of our existing customers. The CIC has held in A.P. Singh vs. Punjab National Bank (Appeal No.12/IC (A)/2006, dated 14/03/2006), that a bank is under duty to maintain the secrecy of accounts of its customers, who are also third party. In Rajan Verma H. vs. Canara Bank (F.No. CIC/PB/A/2007 /01082) it was held by CIC that Bank is a commercial entity and that the agreement that it has arrived at with other parties are a matter of commercial confidence. The Information sought by the Applicant cannot be disclosed to him in view of the confidentiality obligations of the Bank. Further, disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity or interest."
8. Taking note of the earlier order of the Commission issued in a similar matter in Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2021/130859, wherein the following was observed and ordered:
"...The Commission observes that the appellant has raised clear allegations of fraud within the public authority. The respondent has wrongly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on point no. 1 of the RTI application. Therefore, the information regarding certified copy Letter of Authority given in favour of Mr. Ravindra Annarao Konapure, Clerk from collector office Solapur should be provided to the appellant as sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application, as the information involves larger public interest..."Page 6 of 9
In the above backdrop, the Commission enquired from the Rep. of CPIO if the earlier order was complied with and if it was in their knowledge that the Commission had ordered for disclosure in the identical matter citing larger public interest. It was also remarked that the instant set of RTI Application(s) being filed well after the issuance of the earlier CIC order as has been argued by the CPIO, it was only prudent for them to have paid heed to the rationale laid down in the earlier order instead of invoking the same exemptions that were rejected by the Commission in the earlier order and yet call out the Appellant's cause of action as being misleading for not disclosing earlier that a similar matter had been decided.
To this observation, Nikhil, Legal Officer had vehement objections and put up an unacceptable disposition by making animated gestures and failing to keep himself composed or coherent with his arguments. After a considerable amount of time spent in warning him to maintain the decorum but to no avail, the bench asked the officer to step out of the NIC studio and allow for the Rep. of CPIO to plead the case.
The Rep. of CPIO appeared to be oblivious to the facts of the case and merely spent the time in expressing perplexity.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the unreasonable conduct of the Rep. of the CPIO and the Legal Officer in over stretching the argument regarding the Appellant not having disclosed the factum of the earlier case or the mechanical argument seeking to exempt the averred information and not wanting to put forth any coherent argument in the backdrop of the ratio of the earlier decided case has ostensibly resulted in casting aspersions on the intent of the CPIO in pressing for denial of the information. In other words, the grounds of the second appeal argued by the Appellant, the earlier order of the Commission as well as the arbitrary conduct of the representatives of the CPIO in mechanically endorsing the written arguments of the CPIO, cumulatively reaffirm the larger public interest apparent in the disclosure of the information sought for in the instant set of RTI Application(s).
Page 7 of 9Now, it is also observed that the earlier order in Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2021/130859 had held the reply provided to the remaining similar queries in the earlier RTI Application as appropriate, however, taking cue from the larger public interest found to be subsisting in the disclosure, this bench is of the considered opinion that the relief ought to be extended to points (i) & (iv) of the instant set of RTI Application(s) as well. It is also noted that the argument of the CPIO that the information sought in Second Appeal No.122507 is identical to the RTI Application decided in Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2021/130859 is conceded with only to the extent that the name of the branch is the same but there is a difference in the time period to which the information has been sought for in both these cases and even if the time period mentioned in the instant case is covered in the time line referred in the earlier case, the fact remains that relief being ordered on two additional points in the instant case sets these cases slightly apart.
Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the available information for para 1 i.e copy of letter; point (i)- mode of operation mandate; point(iv)- account balance with respect to all the RTI Applications under reference to the Appellant, free of cost. The said directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
10. The Appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
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: 30.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 8 of 9
Addresses of the parties:
1. The PIO
State Bank of India,
Regional Business Office,
Solapur, 1st Floor, 2A, Budhwar Peth,
Balives, Solapur-413002
2. Ram Gopinath Mane
Sl. No. Second Appeal No.
1 CIC/SBIND/A/2023/122508
2 CIC/SBIND/A/2023/122504
3 CIC/SBIND/A/2023/122505
4 CIC/SBIND/A/2023/122506
5 CIC/SBIND/A/2023/122507
Page 9 of 9