Pramodray Harsukhlal Mehta vs State Bank Of India on 22 July, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pramodray Harsukhlal Mehta vs State Bank Of India on 22 July, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.02.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 15.12.2018 and first appeal dated 22.01.2019:-

(i) Provide the daily progress made on the appellant's applications dated 21.06.2018 and 09.10.2018.

(ii) Please give the names and designations of the officials with whom his application was lying during this period. Also intimate the periods when it was lying with which officer and what was the action taken by that official during that period?

Page 1 of 4

(iii) Provide proof of receipt and dispatch of his application in the office of each of these officials.

(iv) According to the bank's rules or citizens charter or any order, in how many days should such a matter be dealt with and resolved? Provide a copy of these rules.

(v) The above officials have not adhered to the time limit mentioned in these rules.

Are these officials guilty of violating these rules and hence guilty of misconduct under their conduct rules? Please give a copy of their conduct rule, which they have violated by violating the above-mentioned rule.

(vi) These officials have caused serious mental injury to the appellant by making him run around all this while. Are these officials guilty of causing mental harassment to the public?

(vii) What action can be taken against these officials for violating all the above rules and for causing mental agony to the public? By when this action would be taken?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.12.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Rajkot, Gujarat, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.12.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.01.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 04.02.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 26.02.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 26.02.2019 inter alia on the grounds that desired information was not provided by the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 4

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.12.2018 gave point-wise reply wherein they informed that information sought on point no. 1 was not held on record; information sought on point no. 2 not available in material form; information sought on point no. 3 was denied under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act; citizen charter as sought on point no. 4 was available on their website www.sbi.co.in/www.bcsbi.org.in and against point nos. 5 to 7, it was stated that information sought was in the form of question/answer which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 04.02.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Anukul Yadav, Chief Manager(Law), State Bank of India, Rajkot, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply was given by the respondent but the TDS details was not received by him till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided all the details including copy of the TDS certificate. They further submitted that against point nos. 5 to 7, it was stated that information sought was in the form of question/answer which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. Though, the respondent during the course of hearing inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise information to the appellant including copy of TDS certificate, however, they failed to show to the Commission copy of such reply given to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant claimed that TDS details as sought were not provided by the respondent. Hence, in the interest of justice, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised point-wise information/reply including action taken on the appellant's complaints dated 21.06.2018 and 09.10.2018 and copy of the TDS certificate, to the appellant, within three weeks Page 3 of 4 from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 22.07.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE - 1, Opp. SARDARBAUG, CIRCUIT HOUSE, RAJKOT, GUJARAT - 360001 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-III), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BHADRA, AHEMEDABAD - 380 001 PRAMODRAY HARSUKHLAL MEHTA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission