Central Information Commission
Shri Anil Kumar Khandelwal vs State Bank Of India on 9 June, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/01214-SM dated 15.01.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 9 June 2009
Appellant : Shri Anil Kumar Khandelwal
Respondent : CPIO, State Bank of India, Local Office, Hazratganj,
Lucknow
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Ms. Soogata Mitra, Dy. Manager (Law)
(ii) Shri R.K. Verma, Manager
The case was heard on 15 May 2009.
The case in brief is as under.
The Appellant had sent an application to the CPIO/Branch Manager on 15 January 2007 for a number of information in respect of the action taken on seven different letters he had sent in the past regarding the demand drafts issued by the Bank in the name(s) of Anil Kumar alias Sandeep alias Arun Kumar alias Raj Kumar. The CPIO replied to him on 19 February 2008 and informed him that the Bank's advocate had already provided the desired information in his reply dated 27 May 2006. Against this, he filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority which that Authority decided in his order dated 13 May 2008. He endorsed the stand of the CPIO and disposed of the appeal. Not satisfied with this order, he has now come before the CIC in second appeal.
2. During the hearing, both the sides were present and made their submissions. It appears that the Appellant had bought a number of demand drafts from the said Branch of the Bank in four different names as admitted by him in his own application. He has stated that when he lost these demand drafts, he had requested the Branch not to make payment against those drafts, if and when presented. On learning that the Branch had already CIC/PB/A/2008/01214-SM cleared those drafts, he had written several letters to the Branch in this regard, the present application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act being the latest one. The Respondent submitted that the demand drafts were issued long time back and, in response to the notice received from the Appellant's advocate, the Bank's advocate had already provided him detailed information in this regard. Besides, he also argued that a number of these drafts had been issued in the names of individuals other than the Appellant and the Appellant had no right to seek information in regard to those demand drafts which were not issued in his name. We tend to agree with the contention of the Respondent. The admission by the Appellant that all the demand drafts issued by the Branch in the names of others were actually meant to be his under the disguise of other individuals is, to say the least, both strange and serious an admission. The CPIO cannot be expected to provide the Appellant any information in respect of demand drafts which had been issued in the names of other individuals even if the Appellant claims those to be actually his.
3. However, he can surely be informed about the demand drafts issued in his own name. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to send to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order, details as sought by him in his application about the demand drafts issued in his own name even if that information had been sent earlier at the level of the Bank's advocate.
4. With the above directions, this appeal is disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/PB/A/2008/01214-SM