Braj Kishore Prasad vs State Bank Of India on 31 May, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Braj Kishore Prasad vs State Bank Of India on 31 May, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.11.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 10.07.2017 and first appeal dated 16.08.2017:

     (i)     सरकारी ए     के अ गत िकये गये ताला ब ी संब       त स ू ण कागजात की

             अिभ मािणत ित उपल       कराये I




                                                                              Page 1 of 3

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.07.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Bettiah seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 08.08.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 16.08.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 19.09.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 12.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 12.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO is unsatisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.08.2017 replied that records were being searched, after getting the records and the same would be given to the appellant. The FAA vide his order dated 19.09.2017 directed the CPIO to provide a suitable reply after searching the records from the concerned branch.

5. The appellant and the respondent Mr. Kumar Vatshal, Regional Manager/CPIO, State Bank of India, West Champaran attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had not received any reply/information till date.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided the information to the appellant vide their letter dated 09.10.2017. Besides, the Commission has in receipt of communication dated 30.05.2019 wherein they had mentioned about the communication dated 30.07.2013 made with the District Magistrate, West Champaran district requesting to extend required assistance in Page 2 of 3 taking possession of assets under SARFAESI Act, on 24.07.2014. However, perusal of the letter reveals that it does not contain any document relating to action taken under SARFAESI Act.

5.3. The appellant has also pleaded that he had not received complete information/ documents as requested by him.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, directs the respondent to provide complete information once again to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter. With these observations the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 31.05.2019 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission