Central Information Commission
Eapen Thomas vs State Bank Of India on 9 August, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/117995
Eapen Thomas ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Mavelikara ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.10.2022 FA : 25.12.2022 SA : 13.04.2023
CPIO : 25.11.2022 &
FAO : 25.01.2023 Hearing : 07.08.2024
29.12.2022
Date of Decision: 08.08.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Detailed statement of Accounts incorporating Account Number, Principal amount, Interest rate, term, maturity value, maturity amount, value date, amounts pertaining to taxes deducted at source and whether these deducted taxes were transferred to the Government department and dates thereof and the name of the said department. After maturity of one deposit the amount re- invested Page 1 of 12 after deduction of taxes becomes the next Principal amount. All the details mentioned above with regard to the first deposit from its initial term has to be repeated for the renewed deposit also till closure of the deposits / pre- sent renewal. All such details have to be repeated for all the 9 Term deposits from the initial date of deposit in the 1970's. The information sought for shall be furnished in a proforma format for all the 9 deposits separately and not in a haphazard manner with the intention to suppress intricate details. The nine term deposits are those mentioned in letter No. D 758/21 dt 30.10.2021 of the Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta which was handed over to the Chief Manager of SBI Mavelikkara Town Branch on 06.11.2021 and acknowledged under her sign and seal. It shall be mentioned that later on four of these deposit receipts were handed over to the Branch by the Hon. Sub Judge through messenger of the Court for closure, which were found missing.
(ii) Statement of Accounts pertaining to the Savings Bank Account clearly in-
corporating Interest added monthly/quarterly / half yearly from date of opening till the present date is required. The respective rate of Interest applied on each occasion over the years also shall be informed. The number of the Savings Bank A/c is mentioned in letter No. D 758/21 dt 30.10.2021 of the Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta which was handed over to the Chief Manager of SBI Mavelikkara Town Branch on 06.11.2021 and acknowledged under her sign and seal.
(iii) All other amounts deducted from these 10 A/c's or its successor A/c's by the Bank on its own or for someone else, if any, at any time from inception in 1972 till date of closure and if so the purpose for which it was deducted shall be revealed.
(iv) Copy of A/c opening forms of the 4 A/c's closed and paid to Smt Mary Phil- ip on 12.02.2019 purported to be the personal A/c's of Late Adv Smt Annam- ma Alexander carrying A/c No's 67045374262, 67045374148, 67045374342 and Page 2 of 12 67045374488 (and its successor A/c's 67129216270, 67129216995, 67129216826,67129216521). This is essential as the Bank has adopted the stand that these were the personal A/c's of Late Adv. Smt Annamma Al- exander and not deposited under orders of Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta. The A/c opening forms provide the most vital evidence to prove this disputed point. I shall point out once again that I am forwarding application for revelation of this important information under Sections 40 and 4(d) of the RTI Act as the A/c's were found closed when the order of the Sub Judge to close the A/c's were handed over to the Branch along with the Deposit receipts. The Branch official has thereupon denied me payment of 20% of my share in these A/c's even though I was adjudged owner of 20% share of the amount in these deposits vide judgment and decree in OS 47/72 dt 29.10.2009 of Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta, i.e., the amount in these Accounts were paid to fraudsters on 12.02.2019 when I was designated owner of 20% of the amount 10 years back on 29.10.2009 itself.
(v) I shall request for supply of information in the form of copy of the specimen signature scanned into the system of all the 4 Term deposit A/c's which were closed on 12.02.2019 and paid to Smt Mary Philip. The specimen signature in the A/c opening forms shall also be supplied separately. The details just mentioned under item 4 above regarding request for supply of information ap- plies to item 5 also.
(vi) The amounts in the deposits were adjudged to be paid in the ratio 80:20 by the Hon Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta in OS 47/72. I shall request for information over the amount of 80% paid into the 5 Term deposit A/c's and the SB A/c individually and cumulatively to the credit of the Canara Bank A/c as also regarding the 20% share paid to me individually for each deposit A/c for all the A/c's during closure of the Accounts on 26.10.2022.
Page 3 of 122. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"Point (i) & (iii) - In terms of section 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005, the applicant has to pay Rs. 2/- for each page created or copies, as fees representing the cost of the information. The information sought for by you consists of 9 pages. Hence you have to pay Rs 18/- as cost of the information.
Point (ii) - In terms of section 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005, the applicant has to pay Rs. 2/- for each page created or copies, as fees representing the cost of the information. The information sought for by you consists of 3 pages. Hence you have to pay Rs 6/- as cost of the information.
Point (iv) & (v) - The 4 fixed deposits were opened in the name of Smt. Annamma Alexander prior to 1991. Smt. Annamma Alexander expired on 02/01/1991 and the closures were made on 12.02.2019 as per the succession certificate no.12/2018 dated 17/03/2018 ordered by Hon. Sub Judge, Ernakulam. The account opening forms and specimen signatures re- quested are not traceable.
Point (vi) - In terms of section 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005, the applicant has to pay Rs. 2/- for each page created or copies, as fees representing the cost of the information. The information sought for by you consists of 1 page. Hence you have to pay Rs 2/- as cost of the information."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.12.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA's order dated 25.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.04.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Sreelekha S, Regional Manager and Ms. Sunitha K.S, Law Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 4 of 126. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not within the stipulated time. Moreover, the reply was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought. A written submission of the appellant is reproduced as under:-
1)The opposite parties have not credited back the fees of Rs 26/- remitted as they have failed to comply with the time stipulations mandated under the Act. (Sections 7(1) and Sections 7(6). Even the said reply letter was dated well after 30 days of receipt of the RTI Application and most of the informations were refused to be provided with or in its totality. Therefore the fees remitted has to be refunded in accordance with law.
2) Since the CPIO had not provided the informations within the stipulated mandatory period of 30 days the request shall be deemed to have been rejected. ( Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act ). The reply which did not contain the informations requested for was received after 32 days beyond the mandatory 30 days provided for in the Act. Even in this case, it is pointed out that the CPIO was forced to reply only after intimation of receipt of the Appeal by the First Appellate Authority. The appeal reached the first Appellate Authority on 25.12.2022 and the reply of the CPIO was dated 29.12.2022. The Act does not envisage such a situation wherein the CPIO could reply to an RTI Application at his own leisurely time and that too after eliciting the fees for providing the information and still after receipt of first Appeal.
3) Section 7(9) of the Act clearly stipulates that the information should be provided in the form in which it is sought. But the CPIO had violated this provision of the Act as he had furnished the information to No 1 request in the Application not for the requested period but according to his convenience. The statements have been furnished from 21.09.2010, 31.03.2009, 31.03.2009, 31.03.2009, 31.03.2017, 31.03.2017, 31.03.2011, 17.11.2014 and 31.03.2013 only for the 9 Term deposits respectively when it was requested to be furnished from the initial period of Page 5 of 12 investment of the deposits. Further, rates of Interest, details of taxes deducted at source and remitted from the Accounts requested for etc were rejected to be supplied with.
4) Regarding request for information sought for under item 2 of the Application for a specific period, it has been provided for only from 24.07.2005 which amounts to refusal of the request.
5) Similarly the information requested for under item 3 of the Application had been refused to be provided as the entire balance in 4 Accounts in its entirety had been siphoned off by fraudsters in connivance with Bank officials and this information of closure of these Accounts have been failed to be revealed.
6) Copy of Account opening forms of the 4 Accounts as requested under item 4 and copy of specimen signatures of the four Accounts as appearing in the system were denied to be provided. The relevant portions of the Banks Circular mandating the forms to be preserved for 10 years from the dates of closure till 11.02.2029 and 25.10.2032 respectively were provided in second appeal and to the first Appellate Authority but these were rejected to be provided. The reason mentioned as "not traceable" is not provisioned for under the Act. It is stated that the information have been destroyed with purposefully with the intention to cover up the involvement of corrupt officials of the Bank in the fraud and thereupon the misleading information have been furnished with in the most malafide manner to this Appellant.( Section 20(1) of the Act).
7) It is pointed out that the CPIO had given incorrect, incomplete and misleading information and has also destroyed the information as mentioned under Section 20(1) of the Act as described above. The reasons for rejection of information has not been provided for in violation of Section 7(8)(1) of the Act.
8) It is pointed out that a period of 642 days have already lapsed as on date since filing of the RTI Application on 29.10.2022 for certain information's which were very dear to this Applicant. Public Interest is also involved as it involves opening Page 6 of 12 the lid of financial frauds indulged in active collusion of the Bank officials in the premier Bank of State Bank of India. The preamble of the RTI Act had clearly foreseen such a situation wherein revelation of information in actual practice conflicts with corruption, effective operations of public authorities, instrumentalities of Government accountable to the governed, preservation of the paramountcy of the democratic ideal etc, all of which has combined to occur in this particular case. It is requested that all the information's requested for shall be ordered to be supplied with along with maintaining the right of appeal of this Appellant as otherwise the opposite parties would never care to honour the order as the escape route after closure of the case is open to them.
9) Finally this Appellant calls for imposition of all the penalties prescribed under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act on the CPIO for all the described violations indulged with impunity to violate the lawful rights of this Appellant. It is also requested that the CPIO should be called upon to prove that he had acted reasonably and diligently as provided in the Act and that speaking orders shall be provided so that the ends of justice are met, even though belatedly.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought details of 10 saving accounts referred in order no. D 758/21, EP no. 4/2015 and EP 77/2015 dated 30.10.2021 imposing an obligation on Bank's Manager to furnish the details of 10 accounts to the decree holders. She further submitted that as the appellant was one of the parties in a case, the CPIO provided all available information to the appellant. When enquired by the Commission regarding availability of the information on point no. 4 and 5 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that the information sought on the above said points were related to the FDs of Smt. Annamma Alexander for the period of 1991 and the same is not traceable. Moreover, the RTI application of the appellant was so confusing and not as per the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. A written submission of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
Page 7 of 12"1, Sreelekha S arrayed as Respondent, working as Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Mavelikkara is the present CPIO at State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Mavelikkara.
2. It is submitted that all the allegations made against the respondent are denied as they are incorrect and without any basis. The present second appeal is devoid of any merits and hence liable to be dismissed for the reasons detailed in the following paragraphs.
3. Brief Background of the RTI Application: It is observed that some disputes are going on between the appellant and his relatives regarding some property from the year 1958 onwards. In this connection in the year 2021 Sub Court, Pattanamthitta has issued a letter to our Mavelikkara Town Branch directing to release 20% of the proceeds of 10 deposits to the decree holders in EP No. 4/2015 and 80% of the amount to the decree holders in EP No. 77/2015. The Appellant is a decree holder in EP 04/2015. Out of these 10 deposits, five fixed deposits and one SB account were in the name of Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta and four deposits were in the name of late Annamma Alexander who was expired on 02. 01.1991. The 4 deposits in the Name of Annamma Alexander were already closed in the year 2019 and the proceeds released to the Smt. Mary Philip in whose favor Succession certificate was issued by the Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The appellant has filed the RTI application seeking the details of these 10 accounts. Though the information is related to the account of third parties, considering the connection of the appellant to the said court case, CPIO has provided all the available information related to these accounts.
4. The appellant, has submitted the RTI application dated 29/10/2022 to the CPIO seeking various information regarding the said 10 fixed deposits in the name of court and late Annamma Alexander. In the detailed RTI application of having 4 pages, the appellant has raised so many issues which is totally confusing. The six queries raised by the appellant was very complex and all of these queries having multiple sub-queries seeking voluminous information. As these information was not Page 8 of 12 readily available, we had taken significant effort and hard working to compile and prepare the data required by the appellant. The appellant has asked the details of all the 9 fixed deposits from the year 1970 onwards and all the details of Its renewals and the details of TDS deducted In each year. Though it was a herculean task, we have complied and provided the details TDS of these 9 FDs from the year 2007 onwards and also provided the account statements from the year 2015 onwards.
5. The CPIO has given the reply to the Appellant on 25/11/2022 by which advised the appellant to pay cost of information for query No.1,2,3 and 6 which consist of 13 pages and reply given to query No. 4 85. On receipt of fee, the CPIO has provided information for query No.1, 2,3 and 6 vide letter dated 29/12/2022.
6. The Appellant had filed appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act before the first Appellate Authority on 25/12/2022 on the ground that even after the payment of the cost of information, the information was not provided by the CPIO. On receipt of information from the CPIO, on 03/01/2023, the appellant has filed an addendum to appeal raising so many confusing allegations. The main allegation is that the CPIO has denied the information for query No. 4& 5 as "not traceable. These queries are seeking the specimen signature of late Annamma Alexander and copy of account opening forms of FDs in the name of Annamma Alexander.
7. The First Appellate Authority vide Order dated 25/01/2023 has disposed the RTI application with a finding that the accounts referred in the RTI application are not maintained in the name of the appellant but in the name of Sub Judge, Pattanamthitta and in the name of late Annamma Alexander. However, it appears that, the CPIO has pro- vided the available information for the reason that, certain court cases are pending in the matter of which, the appellant is also involved. The First Appellate Authority has also observed that appellant is not entitled to receive documents such as account opening forms and specimen signature of late Annamma Alexander as the same in- volves personal information or third party information in which no public interest is involved or established by the appellant. Further, the Bank is not subscribed to various contentions and averments that the appellant has Page 9 of 12 made against the Bank in the RTI application and appeal. As the purpose of the RTI Act is not for entertaining such matters, CPIO not inclined to comment further on the same.
8. Regarding the allegation of non-providing of information even after the payment of cost of information, it is submitted that though we have provided all the communications to the Appellant through the registered post, as admitted by the Appellant, instead of forwarding the original of challan, he has sent an email to regional office. Hence, it has not come to the notice of CPIO. Immediately on getting the information regarding the payment of cost, CPIO has provided the information to the appellant.
9. It is respectfully submitted that as admitted in the RTI application dated 29/10/2022, the appellant has earlier submitted an RTI application on 27/04/2022 and 18/07/2022 raising various queries related to these FDs. All these RTI applications were vague and not specific. Most of these queries having multiple sub- queries seeking voluminous Information. Many of the queries are repetitive or with minor modifications to the earlier RTI Applications. The Bank has already attended all the above RTI applications and Appeals. Whatever Information in the matter that can be shared with the Appellant was already provided to the Appellant.
10. Repeated and vague RTI applications will amount to clogging the office of public authority and CPIO would be justified even in refusing to entertain such RTI applications for sufficient reasons. Such repeated applications would amount to obstructing the free flow of information to deserving and genuine RTI Applicants, besides preventing the officers of the Public Authority from performing their other normal duties attached to the office. The present appeal and the connected RTI application is a misuse of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that being a one of the decree holders, the CPIO has provided the available information to the appellant vide letter dated 25.11.2022 Page 10 of 12 & 29.12.2022. The perusal of record further reveals that the appellant has sought personal information of the third-party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied appropriately by the FAA vide its order dated 25.01.2023. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
9. Further, the Commission notes that the RTI application of the appellant was so confusing and not as per the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
Page 11 of 12"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."
10. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Further, the Commission finds no malafides in the delay in replying to points 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the RTI application. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 08.08.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005)
O/o Regional Manager,
State Bank of India, Regional
Business Office-V Padma Bhavan
Building, Opp. K.S.R.T.C Bus Stand,
Mavelikara-690101.
2. Eapen Thomas
Page 12 of 12
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)