Central Information Commission
Gawali Bhagwan Vijaykumar vs State Bank Of India on 16 October, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/128497
Gawali Bhagawan VijayKumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, RTI CELL,
REGIONAL MANAGER - II, LATUR,
REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE,
MADHAV HEIGHTS, IST FLOOR,
KHARDEKAR STOP, AUSA ROAD,
LATUR - 413512, MH. ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/10/2023
Date of Decision : 13/10/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 19/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 15/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 07/03/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/06/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"1] Can a bank ask its customer to compulsory visit a Customer Service Point instead of visiting a branch for depositing an amount or withdrawal of an amount? provide the information?
2] Is there any Direction(s)/Circular(s)/Guideline(s) issued by the Reserve Bank of India in pursuance to the Compulsory use of Customer Service Point instead of visiting Branch? If yes, please provide the information of the same?
3] Is there any Direction(s)/Circular(s)/Guideline(s) issued by the State Bank of India in pursuance to the Compulsory use of Customer Service Point instead of visiting Branch? If yes, please provide the information of the same?
4] Can a Branch Manager ask its customer to visit Customer Service Point if the branch is nearer in distance than Customer Service Point? provide the information? Where to raise the grievance regarding the same? provide information 5] What is the time limit for dealing with customer's complaint/application/request received by way of physical mode / online mode (email)? provide the information?
6] When a branch manager failed to resolve the complaint/application/ request within a particular time who the authority to which customer can approach? provide the information?
7] Can a bank manager ask's it's customer to close a particular account? if yes, under what circular/guidelines? provide the information? (provide the copy of circular/guidelines/direction if any) 8] If the bank manager asks for closing of an account who is the authority to which a customer can approach? provide information?2
9] What steps have been taken to respond/reply to the email dated 15th November 2021 (7:46 PM)? provide the information?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.01.2022 stating as under:
"With reference to the above subject we are hereby returning your application dated 29.12.2021 (received by this office on 29.12.2021) for the following reasons.
You have not paid Rs.10/- fee in proper mode as per the Right to Information Act, 2005. The fee of Rs.10/- must be payable by way of Bankers Cheque/Demand Draft/Indian Postal Order at SBI branch or can be deposited in our bank's P&T account from any branch. And fee paid in such mode must be attached to your letter."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.02.2022. FAA's order, dated 07.03.2022, held as under:
"I find that the appellant has not paid fee in the prescribed mode. Since recovery of application fee is a statutory requirement, neither the CPIO nor this authority has any discretion to waive the fee. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
The CPIO is advised to provide the details of the First Appellate Authority invariably, in response to RTI applications."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"A] The First Appellate Authority has failed to decide the First Appeal on merits. Rather it has only gone through the aspect of non-payment of fee in the prescribed mode. The First Appellate Authority has not gone through the other grounds raised by the appellant.
B] The appellant has only filed the First Appeal with the First Appellate Authority. However, the First Appellate Authority in its order has clearly stated that the decision is based on the written submissions of the appellant. In fact, the appellant has not submitted any kind of written statement and also the First Appellate Authority has not given any hearing to the present appellant before passing the order under challenge.3
Therefore, the order under challenge is passed without considering the crucial facts in the matter, but just in a casual manner.
C] The First Appellate Authority has clearly violated the principles of nature justice while deciding the appeal of the appellant.
D] It is not in dispute that the appellant has paid the application fee of Rs.10/- with RTI application in the form of Court fee stamp as prevalent in the locality. However, while issuing the letter dated 19.01.2022, the CPIO has not returned the RTI application as well as the fee in the form of Court fee Stamp, but only stated that we are returning RTI application. This effected in complete denial of information. And also, till today the RTI application as well as fee in the form of Court Fee Stamp is with the CPIO only. Therefore, it is not the case of CPIO that the appellant did not pay any fee. It is not an application without fee simpliciter. The appellant has already established his bonafide by paying fee in the form of court fee stamp.
E] On 29.12.2021, the appellant submitted the RTI application by paying fee in the form of court fee stamp to the Bank Manager, SBI, Branch- Barshi Road, Latur. The Bank Manager after verifying the RTI application duly accepted the RTI application without objecting and given acknowledgment to the appellant and on the same day forwarded the same to the concerned CPIO. Even the CPIO also accepted the RTI application without objecting application. The CPIO kept quite till the completion of statutory period of 30 days to reject the application of appellant on flimsy, technical and hopeless excuse. This reflects adamant anti-RTI rigidity. This is nothing but harassment and straight denial of the RTI of the appellant. Thus, it is apparent denial of information and that too without any reasonable cause on part of CPIO.
While rejecting the RTI application the CPIO without even applying his mind in a judicious manner has spent public money of Rs.41.30/- for no rhyme or reason and still have not provided any information to the appellant even the First Appellate Authority has failed to consider this aspect. By this way the CPIO has spent lot of time and money of public. This ultimately resulted in denial on flimsy, technical and hopeless excuse. By this way the CPIO as well as First Appellate Authority failed to perform their mandatory duty under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is not the case of appellant to waive the application fee. But by rejecting the application on this count ultimately affected appellants right to information.
F] The appellant on 29.72.2021 filed his RTI application. The CPIO on 25.01.2022 issued a letter by putting backdate on the letter i.e. 19.01.2022, which was received by the appellant on 27.01.2022-i.e. few days before completing a statutory period of 30 days for providing information. It clearly suggests that the CPIO has not acted cautiously as expected under the RTI Act while dealing with the RTI application. He 4 just acted in a casual manner instead of acting more responsibly. The CPIO failed to consider the application sympathetically and supply information sought by way of such an application.
G] Non-payment of fee is not prescribed ground for rejection of request under RTI application. The CPIO cannot take technical excuse about form of payment to deny or delay the information.
Due to this kind of technical excuse the CPIO has ultimately denied the Right to Information of appellant.
H] Non-payment of fee is not ground for rejection of RTI application. Only grounds for rejection are specifically provided under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Conjoint reading of section 6 and 7 of the RTI Act together and understanding spirit of RTI Act as a whole makes CPIO to act reasonably and provide information rather than searching for excuse to reject. The expression "on payment of such fee" means both fee of Rs.10 and further fee representing cost of copying. For that the CPIO has to accept and study the RTI application, get ready to give the information sought and seek payment of cost of copying and on receipt of additional fee, if needed and then the information need to be provided. The CPIO refused application at threshold and was not inclined to arrange information.
I] The rejection of RTI application of the appellant in such manner is against the Right to Information Act and rules.
J] The First Appellate Authority without considering the constitutional guarantee of the Right to Information, failed to consider the appeal in that perspective. But just only rejected the appeal so as to support his subordinate rather than acting as per the mandates / provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
..... the First Appellate Authority has not considered this provision of the Act and dealt the appeal on its own without giving any opportunity of hearing and or opportunity to justify denial of request was justified on the part of CPIO. Therefore, the First Appellate Authority has acted in bias mind and helped the CPIO. Thus, the First Appellate Authority failed to act and conduct the hearing as per the provisions of RTI Act."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Pravin Mandekar, AGM & CPIO present through video-conference.5
The written submission filed by the CPIO prior to the hearing is taken on record. The Appellant reiterated the grounds of his Second Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The CPIO submitted that at the first instance the RTI Application was returned to the Appellant as it was not submitted with RTI fees in a prescribed manner as stipulated in the RTI Rules, with an advice to file it in a proper way. However, ignoring the said request, the Appellant filed the First Appeal and then knock the doors of CIC. Nonetheless, upon receipt of hearing notice, a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has been provided to the Appellant now vide letter dated 10.10.2023.
To a query from the Commission, the Appellant affirms the receipt of averred reply.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes upon a perusal of records that instant RTI Application has not been filed in consonance with Section 6(1) of the RTI Act read with Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, 2012 which is as under -
6(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to--
(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;
3. Application Fee.--An application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant...."
The same is evident from the fact that the Appellant has not filed a fresh/valid IPO along with the RTI Application upon receipt of CPIO's reply. Also, the CPIO cannot be made liable for not having returned the court stamp fees annexed with the instant RTI Application as no specific provision to this effect is mentioned under the RTI Act.
6Having observed as above, the instant Appeal being bereft of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स%यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7