Anurag Gupta vs State Bank Of India on 18 October, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anurag Gupta vs State Bank Of India on 18 October, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 01.03.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 21.10.2018 and first appeal dated 26.12.2018:-

 Under the instruction of his client M/s Raghu Footwear Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its office at 5-6, Raghunath Nagar, M. G. Road, Agra through one of its director Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal. Provide the following information:

(i) That his clients were granted financial assistance during the financial year 1982-

1983 by the Branch of bank the addressee.

Page 1 of 6

(ii) That due to certain reasons, the said account of his client became sticky, and because of this, the bank filed a case against his client in the Court of the Civil Judge (SD), Agra being O.S. No. 508/1989, titled as State Bank of India versus M/s Raghu Footwear Pvt. Ltd. & Others.

(iii) That the said case was decided by the then IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (SD), Agra vide its order dated 05.05.1998 and the Hon'ble IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (SD), Agra directed that the defendants should pay a sum of Rs. 34,537.93p along with 6% simple rate of interest to the plaintiffs.

(iv) That against the said order dated 05.05.1998, the bank filed an FAFO in the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad being FAFO No. 419/1998.

(v) That the said appeal was filed by Shri Navin Sinha on 01.09.1998 from the side of bank the addressee.

(vi) That in the year 1999, settlement proceedings were initiated by his client and the said settlement was affected in the year 2003-2004.

(vii) That the bank thereafter, after making adjustments in the account of his client refunded back to his client a sum of more than one lakh.

(viii) That a certificate that no dues are outstanding against my clients was also issued by the branch of you the addressee, to its Counsel Shri Navin Sinha, for filing the same in the said appeal - FAFO No. 419/1998. The counsel was also directed by the then Branch Manager of the branch, to withdraw the appeal unconditionally.

(ix) That the said certificate ought to have been issued to his client also, which unfortunately was not done, along with the copy of the letter for withdrawal of the appeal.

(x) That in this respect, the addressee is now asked to issue to his client a NOC in this respect stating that there are no dues outstanding against his clients and the account stands settled or in the alternative, the bank should withdraw the appeal FAFO No. 419/1998, which now stands transferred to the Court of the XIth Page 2 of 6 Additional District Judge, Agra (New Number bearing 54/2016) and in which case, 24.11.2018 is now fixed.

(xi) That it is a matter of deep regret that the matter which was settled as early as in the year 2003-2004, has not yet been withdrawn by the bank and his client is being harassed since then.

(xii) That my client submits that either the appeal so filed and which is now pending disposal in Agra (being Appeal No. 54/2016) be withdrawn immediately or in the after nature his client should be issued a "no dues certificate" by the bank so that the appeal (54/2016) can be got dismissed or he may be allowed and permitted to see the original bank file and records, as provided in Section 6 of the RTI Act.

(xiii) That this notice is hereby being sent under section 6 and 7 (1) of the RTI Act and bank was asked to give reply/issue 'No Objection Certificate' within 30 days as provided in the Act.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 21.10.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Agra, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.11.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.12.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 19.01.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 01.03.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 01.03.2019 inter alia on the grounds that information sought 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.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.11.2018 replied that information sought did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, hence, it could not be given to the appellant. The FAA vide his order dated 19.12.2019 stated that no information was sought on point nos. 1 to 8 of the RTI application, only the incidents was Page 3 of 6 narrated in chronological order. They further directed the CPIO to provide revised reply on point nos. 12 and 13 of the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

Hearing on 02.06.2021 4.1. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and the respondent remained absent.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 13.07.2021:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had defied the direction of the First Appellate Authority. Moreover, the respondent did not appear before the Commission despite notice and reasons for the same could not be ascertained. The non-representation on behalf of the respondent is viewed seriously by the Commission. It may not be out of place to mention that even after lapse of more than two years from the date of filing of this RTI application, proper reply/ information has not been furnished by the respondent. In view of this, Shri Paritosh Raizada, the then CPIO, and the present CPIO, State Bank of India, Region-1, Sanjay Place, Agra, are show caused as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. The present CPIO is under obligation to service copy of this order on the then CPIO and secure his explanation. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide proper reply/information to the RTI application within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 01.10.2021

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, the representative of CPIO, Shri Rajeev Kumar Rajpal, State Bank of India, Agra attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia stated that the respondent had not provided satisfactory information. Moreover, the respondent had caused immense delay in the matter.

Page 4 of 6

5.2. The respondent while defending their case submitted that in compliance with the Commission's order dated 13.07.2021 they provided reply to point nos 12 and 13 of the RTI application. The appellant was informed that the query in point no. 12 of the RTI application was explanatory in nature. Further, the appellant had requested the respondent to issue No Dues Certificate which was outside the purview of the RTI Act. The CPIO further explained that as per hearing notice they remained present at the scheduled venue at the scheduled time. However, upon waiting for more than 40 minutes they contacted the Registry and got to know that telephonic hearing was arranged. However, no correspondence for telephonic conference was conveyed to them and that their absence was inadvertent.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent provided suitable reply in compliance of the Commission's order dated 13.07.2021. Perusal of the point no. 13 of the RTI application revealed that the appellant had requested the respondent to issue 'No Dues Certificate'. It may be noted that the same was not covered within the definition of "information" and that the appellant had raised his grievance in the form of RTI query. That being so, and the written explanations submitted by both the CPIOs, there appears to be no mala fide on their part. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to take penal action against the CPIOs. In view of the above, the show cause notices issued against Shri Paritosh Raizada, the then CPIO, and Shri Amit Kumar, the present CPIO, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, 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: 18.10.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

STATE BANK OF INDIA REGION - I, 59-61/4, SANJAY PALACE, AGRA - 2 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-III), STATE BANK OF INDIA, 10TH FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 11, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001 CPIO 1)STATE BANK OF INDIA REGION - I, 59-61/4, SANJAY PALACE, AGRA - 2

2. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGION - I, 59-61/4, SANJAY PALACE, AGRA - 2 (FOR FORWARDING TO THE THEN C.P.I.O SH.

PARITOSH RAIZADA) SHRI ANURAG GUPTA Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission