Pramodray Harsukhlal Mehta vs State Bank Of India on 9 September, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pramodray Harsukhlal Mehta vs State Bank Of India on 9 September, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 29.03.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 03.01.2019 and first appeal dated 12.02.2019:-

(i) provide the daily progress made on his application dated October 15, 2018.

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

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

Page 1 of 4

(iv) According to rules or citizens charter or any other order, in how many days should such a matter be dealt with and resolved. Please 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 him 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 03.01.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Rajkot, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.01.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.02.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.02.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 29.03.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 29.03.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not take care to verify his bank records; that the bank did not consider their documentary evidences; that the bank did not maintain 'Customer Complaint Receiving Register'. 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.

Page 2 of 4

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.01.2019 which reads as under:

(i) the information sought was not held on records,, hence, not provided

(ii) Information was not available in material record

(iii) The information was not to be provided as it was internal correspondences with branch and exempted under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act

(iv) The Citizens charter was available on SBI web site address i.e. www.sbi.co.in/www.bcsbi.org.in

(v) ,(vi) & (vii)The information sought is in the form of question/ answer of which is not covered under the definition of information under Section 2 (0 of the RTI Act, 2005"

The FAA upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Anukul Yadav, Chief Manager (Law) and Shri Gopesh Kumar, CPIO, State Bank of India, Rajkot, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case and while endorsing their reply dated 20.01.2019 inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information regarding his application complaining about unauthorized deduction of TDS of Rs. 12,000/-. The progress report as sought by the appellant was not maintained at their level and the response was accordingly framed and given to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent in terms of point nos (i), (ii) and (iii) of the RTI application was evasive and incomplete. The perusal of the RTI application revealed that the appellant sought action taken and progress in his own application and the respondent was under an obligation to provide detailed and comprehensive reply in that regard. The respondent's evasive reply reflected their inaction towards complaints filed by applicants, especially, when the same was also sought through an RTI application. In view of the above, the respondent is directed that Page 3 of 4 the RTI application be re-visited and appropriate information be made available in tabular format to the appellant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 09.09.2021 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 - 1, OPP. SARDARBAUG CIRCUIT HOUSE, RAJKOT, GUJARAT - 360 001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AURTHORITY, GENERAL MANAGER (NW3), STATE BANK OF INDIA, 6TH FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BHADRA, AHMEDABAD - 380 001 SH. PRAMODRAY HARSUKHLAL MEHTA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission