Central Information Commission
Mr.C P Khemka vs State Bank Of India on 10 September, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002370/VS/00828
Appeal No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002370/VS
Dated: 10.9.2012
Appellant: Shri C.P. Khemka,
B29, Govind Marg,
Jaipur300 004
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Collectorate, Jaipur
Date of Hearing: 10.9.2012
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 9.11.2010 seeking copy of an account statement about the locker, copy of locker agreement, bank rules on default of locker rent, and policy for advance rent of the locker along with list of rent defaulters of lockers.
2. The PIO responded on 13.1.2011 by providing the information. The appellant filed a first appeal on 7.2.2011 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 18.2.2011 stating that all information had already been provided and nothing was to be added further. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 23.5.2011 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The respondent was present at the hearing through teleconferencing. The respondent stated during the hearing that the appellant had sought information on various points with regard to an account related to a locker in the bank. The respondent stated that the appellant had sought information about the statement of account, a copy of the locker agreement, the bank's regulations, the rules for the advance rent for the lockers and details about the defaulters. The respondent stated that all information had been made available to the appellant. The respondent also stated that although this was a very old locker account, but extra effort was made to provide the information.
4. The respondent stated that the problem with the appellant was that he persisted with the filing of needless RTI applications. The respondent said that the appellant had been requested to open an account or deposit some FDRs in keeping with the latest policy. The respondent explained that in the earlier days a locker could be opened without opening an account with the bank, but now the policy has changed and the appellant has been asked to open an account accordingly. However, the appellant has not been cooperating with the bank, and instead has been filing RTI applications.
5. The respondent also stated that the appellant had made wrong allegation that the bank had contravened the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act. The respondent stated that it would be noted from the RTI application that while the application was dated 9.11.2010, but the postal order was dated 8.12.2010. In other words, according to the respondent, the RTI application was backdated.
6. The appellant was not present at the hearing.
7. It is apparent that the respondent has provided the available information with the bank to the appellant.
Decision:
8. There is no reason to interfere with the decision of the FAA, which is upheld.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer