Gopal Kumar Jha vs State Bank Of India on 17 May, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Gopal Kumar Jha vs State Bank Of India on 17 May, 2019

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 17.09.2017 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 03.06.2017 are as under :

(i) Take stern action against the CPIO-CUM-AGM, RACPC, SBI West Gandhi Maidan, Patna for refusing the RTI application and also direct the CPIO to provide the information.

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2017, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the CPIO, State Bank of India, RACPC Branch, Patna seeking inter alia the following information:-

(i) Give me a copy of rule under which loan/asset is recalled by SBI.

(ii) Is there any provision to issue notice before recalling an asset/loan. Give support documents.

(iii) Before recalling asset loan A/c #########3969, notice was issued or not by RACPC Branch, Patna.

(iv) If notice was issued then give me copy of notice.

     (v)       Give me date on which notice was issued.
     (vi)      If you have received any explanation then give me copy of explanation.

(vii) If notice was not issued or explanation was not received then give copy of rule which explain that without issuing notice loan/asset can be recalled.

(viii) Give me date on which my loan was recalled.

(ix) Give me name and designation of officer who recommended to recall my loan.

(x) Before recalling asset/loan, my grievances, application was redressed or not by AGM RACPC Patna.

The CPIO did not reply to the RTI application. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed complaint dated 17.09.2017, before this Commission.

3. The Complainant has filed a complaint dated 17.09.2017 inter alia on the ground that the CPIO has refused to accept the RTI application. The Complainant also stated that the CPIO did not receive RTI application directly in branch. Name Page 2 of 4 of CPIO is also not displayed in the branch so it is very difficult to submit application in the said branch of SBI.

4. The CPIO did not reply to the RTI application.

5. The complainant and the respondent Mr. N.K. Sinha, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Patna attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.1. The Complainant submitted that no reply has been given by the respondent till date. He argued that his RTI application has been refused by the respondent bank which is wrong.

5.2. The Respondent submitted that they have furnished reply to the RTI application vide letter dated 27.06.2017, wherein it was intimated that no fee was attached along with the RTI application. The respondent had asked the complainant to resubmit the RTI application along with the proper fee so that reply could be given. They added that the complainant did not respond to the letter dated 27.06.2017 and also did not file the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, feels that due reply has already been given by the respondent. The complaint is also unwarranted. The complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands as he has concealed the facts that reply was given by the CPIO. The complainant did not refute the receipt of letter dated 27.6.2017 from CPIO nor resubmitted the RTI application along with proper fee as asked by the respondent, nor claimed exemption from payment of fee. Hence, the Commission feels that no further action is warranted in this matter Page 3 of 4 and interest of justice will be served if the complaint is dismissed. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 17.05.2019 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission