Mrdilip Shrishrimal vs State Bank Of India on 9 March, 2015

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrdilip Shrishrimal vs State Bank Of India on 9 March, 2015

                         Central Information Commission
  Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
                              New Delhi-110066
                              website-cic.gov.in

Appeal    Nos.   CIC/MP/A/2014/001073,    CIC/MP/A/2014/001111,    CIC/MP/A/2014/001158,
CIC/MP/A/2014/001207, CIC/MP/A/2014/001225, CIC/MP/A/2014/001363, CIC/MP/A/2014/001449,
CIC/MP/A/2014/001515, CIC/MP/A/2014/001518, CIC/MP/A/2014/001704, CIC/MP/A/2014/001724,
CIC/MP/A/2014/002186, CIC/MP/C/2014/000015, CIC/MP/A/2014/000240, CIC/MP/A/2014/001064
CIC/MP/A/2014/001123, CIC/MP/A/2014/000003, CIC/MP/A/2014/000004, CIC/MP/A/2014/000074,
CIC/MP/A/2014/000075, CIC/MP/A/2014/000096,CIC/MP/A/2014/000241 CIC/MP/A/2014/000263
CIC/MP/A/2014/000283, CIC/MP/A/2014/000284, CIC/MP/A/2014/000367, CIC/MP/A/2014/000579,
CIC/MP/A/2014/000594, CIC/MP/A/2014/000668, CIC/MP/A/2014/001022, CIC/MP/A/2014/001066,
CIC/MP/A/2014/001227, CIC/MP/A/2014/001310, CIC/MP/A/2014/001475, CIC/MP/A/2014/002168,
CIC/MP/A/2014/001604, CIC/MP/A/2014/001514, CIC/MP/A/2014/001063, CIC/MP/A/2014/001062,
CIC/MP/A/2014/001286, CIC/MP/A/2014/001368, CIC/MP/A/2014/001290, CIC/MP/A/2014/001171



Appellant                  :       Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, Mahasamand
Public Authority:                  State Bank of India, Bhopal, Raipur, Indore &
                                   Mumbai.

Date of Hearing             :      19th & 20th February, 2015
Date of Decision            :      09th March, 2015

Present    :
Appellant                  :      Not present
Respondent                 :      Shri Pradeep Kumar Saxena, Chief Manager,
                                  Ms. Anita Pacharne, Manager (Law) and Shri
                                  H.K. Shrivastava, AGM, SBI, Mumbai. Shri
                                  Devadutta Sen, AGM, SBI, SAMB, Bhopal.
                                  Shri Dilip Mogre, AGM, Raipur, Shri Benoy G,
                                  Chief Manager (Law), Bhopal, Shri S.K.
                                  Bhattacharya, Nodal Officer, Bhopal,
                                  Shri M.Raman, DGM, Shri Vipin Srivastava,
                                  AGM, Commercial Branch, Bhopal and
                                  Shri Musini Srinivasa Rao, Manager (Law),
                                  SBI, MCRO, Indore.


                                       ORDER

The Commission heard the 43 applications filed by Shri Dilip Shrishrimal on 19th and 20th February. The appellant had expressed his inability to attend the hearing and requested to decide his appeals on merits, vide his e-mail dated 17.02.2015. These cases were earlier listed for hearing on 28 th and 29th January, 2015, but the appellant requested for postponement of hearing. All the cases are decided on merits.

Hearings held on 19 th February, 2015:

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001073:

1. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 06.02.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on two points: (1) name and designation of sanctioning authority in SBI, sanctioning Export Packing Credit facility to Shri Adishwar Oils and Fats Ltd. (SAOFL) from 2000 to 2010 by making condition saying "since the company is placed under Specific Approval List by ECGC because of guarantee of Dilip Jain for companies who have defaulted in repayment of EPC, further EPCs, will be granted after ECGC's approval is received; (2) name of the higher authority in SBI for making complaint against such sanctioning authority for mentioning such invalid and false condition in respect of sanctions to SAOFL.

1.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 8.3.2014 provided information on Point 1; in response to Point 2 the appellant was informed that he may check the authority from public domain for making any complaint. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 12.03.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 16.04.2014 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

1.3. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

1.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided point-wise information to the appellant. The FAA had concurred with the views of the CPIO. Hence his appeal was treated as disposed of.

1.5 Having heard the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission holds that the had not provided the designation of the members of Mid Corporate Credit Committee who sanctioned the Export Packing Credit (EPC) facility to the appellant with reference to point 1 of the RTI application. The CPIO is directed to provide the designation of members of the said Committee to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001111:

2. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 10.03.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information in respect of name, designation of the officer or Committee of SBI decided to publish in papers, names and photographs of Dilip Shrishrimal along with others as defaulter, name designation of officer authorized SAMB, Bhopal of SBI to publish in paper, from where his photographs along with others were taken and for what purpose, etc. through six points.

2.1. Vide letter dated 11.04.2014 the CPIO provided information on points 1, 2 and 5 and on remaining points the CPIO stated that the queries did not fall within the purview of 'information' as per the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 17.04.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 15.05.2014 the FAA concurred with the CPIO's reply.

2.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

2.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided point-wise information to the appellant. The FAA had provided the name and designation of the officer who decided to publish appellant's photograph in papers and who sent photographs of the appellant along with defaulters for publication in response to point 1, 2 and 5.

2.4 The Commission holds that the appellant had sought specific information on Point No. 3, 4 and 6 with respect to his photographs obtained by SBI, SAMB-Bhopal and the purpose for which obtained and under which law and rule, his photograph were published by the Bank. The CPIO is directed to provide specific reply on point 3, 4 and the copy of the rule and the address of the website with respect to point 6 to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001158:

3. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 10.03.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking thet contents of letter dated 10.11.2007 to Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) in response to ECGC letter dated 16.10.2007; ECGC letter dated 16.10.2007 was addressed to SBI/Commercial Branch, Bhopal and SBI letter dated 10.11.2007 to ECGC was responded by SBI/Commercial Branch, Bhopal etc. on three points.

3.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 12.04.2014 denied information on Point 1 under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act being a correspondence between Bank and ECGC and provided information on point 2 and 3 to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 19.04.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 23.05.2014, the FAA concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

3.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

3.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had sent a point-wise reply to the appellant under the provisions of the RTI Act. The FAA had concurred with the decision of the CPIO, hence the appeal was treated as disposed of. The respondents stated that letter dated 24.6.2014 related to NOC to ECGC for removal of M/s. Crystal Resources Pvt. Ltd from Specific Approval List (SAL). The letters exchanged between SBI and ECGC were confidential and could not be divulged to the appellant u/s 8(1)(d) which would harm their commercial interest. In this regard the appellant had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, Mumbai.

3.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and finds no reason to disagree with the decision of the respondent. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001207:

4. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 31.03.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal, stating that as per order of AA, the SBI provided him copy of ECGC Circular No. HO/Banks Dvn/210/07-08 dated 6.8.2007, which was earlier refused. The appellant sought date and the name and designation of the officer of SBI (SAMB) who received above mentioned circular from Corporate Centre of SBI or from higher authorities in SAM/SAMG; and on which date and name and designation of the officer reviewed the said circular especially point No. 7 in respect of complaint made by the appellant for KNOIL/Crystal Resources account.

4.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 30.04.2014 informed the appellant that the information sought was not available with them. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 05.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 02.06.2014 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

4.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

4.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that information was placed on the website by SBI, Corporate Centre and downloaded from the website. M/s. KN Oil and Crystal Resources were sold to ARC in January, 2006. The Circular dated 6.8.2007 is available in public domain of ECGC website.

4.4 The Commission holds the CPIO had rightly informed the appellant that the circular in question had been downloaded from the website, the question of providing the name and designation of the official who received the said circular does not arise. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001225:

5. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 15.03.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal stating that in the year 2000 - Insurance Policy cover was in existence between SBI and ECGC and under that policy cover SBI supplied name of the appellant and other to get conditional claim from ECGC in the accounts of KNOIL and Crystal and sought information as to who were responsible for compliance of terms and conditions of above mentioned policy cover - only SBI or ECGS or both; and on what basis SBI supplied his name in respect of PRIME Solvent and Indian Specialty Fats as he was not part of both the organizations. Because ECGC still keep on informing to Ministry of Commerce and its internal committees. Since the SBI supplied his name to ECGC and made hype of the issue by associating his name with other irrelevant companies.

5.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 15.04.2014 informed the appellant that the information sought was not available with them. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 19.04.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 23.05.2014 held that the information sought by the appellant did not fall within the ambit of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

5.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

5.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the policy of ECGC was available in the public domain and no interpretation/ opinion in this regard can be provided to the appellant. The respondents had appropriately replied to point 2 of the RTI application.

5.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents. No action is called for on the part of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001363:

6. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 18.04.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal seeking information on the date and the amount the SBI received and responded to ECGC their reminder for recovery of claim paid including remaining amounts. ECGC said it has written letter on 18.3.2014 in respect of KNOIL account; the date and the amount the SBI received and responded to ECGC their reminder for recovery of claim paid remaining amounts relating to Crystal account; presently as per terms and conditions of ECGC who has the mandatory recourse for KNOIL and Crystal - SBI or KOTAK, as both SBI & ECGS admitted that SBI has assigned KNOIL and Crystal accounts to Kotak without prior approval of ECGS which is mandatory etc. through five points.

6.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 20.05.2014 provided information on point 1, 2 and 4 and denied information on point 3 u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act; in response to point 5 the appellant was informed that the information as sought for was ambiguous. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 23.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 12.06.2014 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

6.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

6.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that information on point 1 and 2 was provided to the appellant. The information sought at Point 3 was denied u/s 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act as it related to correspondence between Bank and the ECGC. The information sought on Point 5 was based on presumption and hence it did not fall within the meaning of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.

6.4 The Commission holds that complete information permissible under the RTI Act had been provided to the appellant. The decision of the respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001449:

7. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 08.05.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal seeking information pertaining to the name of authority in Bank empowered to disregard, contractual obligations with ECGC with regard to conditional claim received by Bank, at the time of assigning such ECGC claim received account to another Bank/ Assets Reconstruction Company (ARC); and name of the authority in Bank's NPA management empowered to disregard contractual obligation with ECGC with regard to conditional claim received by Bank at the time of assigning such ECGC claim received account.

7.1 Vide letter dated 01.06.2014 the CPIO informed the appellant that the information as sought for was not available on records. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 12.06.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 27.06.2014 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

7.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

7.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that information as sought for by the appellant was not available in their records.

7.4 The Commission holds that as per section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 the CPIO is supposed to provide information to the RTI applicants which is held by or under the control of the public authority. Since the information as sought for by the appellant was not held by the respondents, the decision of the respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001515:

8. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 23.04.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal seeking information regarding the details of steps taken by Bank for refunding Rs. 1,62,85385 from SBI 8 to ECGC to stop recovery reminders from ECGC to Bank, as ECGC stated that it had sent 20 recovery reminders during 2006-2014 in respect of Crystal account and not responded by Bank; and the details of steps taken by Bank for refunding Rs. 15, 89, 214 from SBI to ECGS to stop recovery reminders from ECGC to bank, as ECGC stated that it has sent 20 recovery reminders during 2006-2014 in respect of KNOIL account and not responded by Bank.

8.1 In response to point 1 the CPIO informed the appellant vide letter dated 25.05.2014 the CPIO vide letter dated 25.05.2014 that they had received only two letters during 2006-2014, out of which one was responded to vide letter No. SAMB/BPL/RKJ/4087 dated 5.2.2014, The SBI did not receive any further recovery reminders from ECGC, so there was no need to take steps to stop them. so there was no need to take steps to stop ECGC; in response to point 2 the CPIO stated that SBI did not receive any recovery reminders from ECGC during 2006-2014, as already advised vide letter dated 5.2.2014. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 02.06.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 24.06.2014 the FAA concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

8.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

8.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. During the hearing the respondents confirmed that no other letter was received from ECGC.

8.4 The Commission holds that the respondents had duly replied to the RTI queries of the appellant. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001518:

9. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 24.04.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal seeking information by stating that in the paper publication by SBI, SAMB-Bhopal of Dilip Shrishrimal and others on 6.3.2014, the bank has mentioned details of counter claim raised by 9 Adishwar Oils and Fats Ltd. against SBI and complaint raised by SAOFL in SBI- ECGS matter against SBI.

9.1 Vide letter dated 26.05.2014 the CPIO informed the appellant that paper publication was already available in public domain and may be easily accessed by the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 31.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 25.06.2014 the FAA concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

9.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

9.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the paper publication is available in public domain and the appellant was accordingly replied to.

9.4 The information as sought for by the appellant is available in public domain, the decision of the respondent's is therefore upheld. No action is called for on the part of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001704:

10. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 05.06.2014 before the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Raipur seeking information on four points such as name and designation of the officer of SBI who reviewed the terms and conditions of ECGC conditional claim of Rs. 25,32,986 and decided to disregard such terms and conditions of ECGC before crediting the same into KNOIL loan account on 17.3.2004; on which date SBI- CB-Raipur applied and obtained approval of ECGC before crediting this amount; on which date SBI, Raipur informed to KNOIL and its Directors and guarantors that SBI has credited loan account of KNOIL with the said amount and on which date SBI Raipur intimated to DRT in respect of case filed by SBI against KNOIL saying that SBI has received conditional claim from ECGC and appropriated against dues from KNOIL.

10.1 The CPIO, SBI, SAMB, Bhopal vide letter dated 10.07.2014 informed the appellant that no such information was available in their records. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 14.07.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 06.08.2014 held on point nos. 1 and 2 that the information sought did not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and concurred the reply on point nos. 3 and 4.

10.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

10.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. During the hearing the respondents stated that information as sought for by the appellant on point 1 and 2 was based on his presumption and not information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. On point nos. 3 and 4 the respondents confirmed that no information was available in their records. Moreover, it is an internal accounting procedure and there is no provision to inform the DRT.

10.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the appellant had been duly replied to his RTI application. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001724:

11. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 05.06.2014 before the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhopal seeking information on four points - name and designation of the officer of SBI who reviewed the terms and conditions of ECGC conditional claim of Rs. 2,02,03,109 and decided to disregard such terms and conditions of ECGC before crediting the same into Crystal loan account on 31.1.2004; on which date SBI Bhopal applied and obtained approval of ECGC before crediting the said amount into loan account of Crystal, on which date SBI informed to Crystal and its directors and guarantors that SBI has credited loan account of Crystal with the said amount, on which date SBI intimated to DRT in respect of case filed by SBI against Crystal saying that SBI has received conditional claim from ECGC and appropriated against dues from Crystal.

11.1 The CPIO, SBI, SAMB, Bhopal vide letter dated 10.07.2014 informed the appellant that no such information was available in their records. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 14.07.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 05.08.2014 concurred the reply of the CPIO on point nos. 3 and 4 and on point nos. 1 and 2 held that the information sought appeared to be hypothetical and did not fall within the purview of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

11.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

11.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. During the hearing the respondents stated that information as sought for by the appellant on point 1 and 2 was based on his presumption and not information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. On point nos. 3 and 4 the respondents confirmed that no information was available in their records. Moreover, it is an internal accounting procedure and there is no provision to inform the DRT.

11.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the appellant had been duly replied to his RTI application. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/002186:

12. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 16.08.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal seeking details of his RTI application by which the appellant sought the redressal of his grievance against the Bank.

12.1 Vide letter dated 18.09.2014 the CPIO informed the appellant that the details of the RTI applications under reference were already held by the appellant as these had been sent by him. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 23.09.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 21.10.2014 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

12.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

12.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. During the hearing the respondents reiterated their earlier stand.

12.4 The Commission holds that the appellant had not seek any information rather he sought copy of his own RTI application by which he sought redressal of his grievance against the Bank. The decision of the respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/C/2014/000015 [complaint]:

13. The complainant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 22.08.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai seeking information about those responsible for observing compliance of terms and conditions of the contract of insurance cover between SBI and ECGC, once the Report of Default [ROD] was made in prescribed form ; whether non- compliance of any of the laid down rules and conditions by ECGS or SBI makes such contract void or contract continues despite such lapses; what is the status of such borrower, their directors and guarantors described in such rule of contract between SBI and ECGC; What are the rights, protection and remedy available to such borrower, their directors and guarantors whose names had been supplied by SBI to ECGC to get conditional claim - in the event of non-compliance of terms and conditions and rules by SBI and/or ECGC jointly or individually or any lapse by them (ECGC/SBI) which affect the essence of the contract etc. through five points.

13.1 Vide letter dated 25.09.2013 the CPIO, SBI, Corporate Centre, Mumbai informed the complainant that the information sought by him was in the nature of opinion/advice and hence not information as held by the Bank u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Although no specific replies to his queries could be provided, the CPIO advised that once the ROD is submitted, the question of compliance or non-compliance of terms and conditions did not arise. The Guarantee Agreement is a mutually agreed contract and question of non-compliance of the same did not arise. There was no conditional claim sort of clause as per the agreement. Agreement was between SBI 13 and ECGC, and SBI gets guarantee cover for their export credit. Paid claims were pursued with the borrowers/guarantors/obligants for realization of dues by all the related parties. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 03.10.2013. Vide order dated 23.10.2013 the FAA concurred with the CPIO's reply.

13.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the complainant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

13.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. During the hearing the respondents reiterated their stand.

13.4 The Commission holds that the complainant sought interpretation/opinion/ advice which did not fall within the meaning of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the CPIO had proactively provided certain information to the queries which were in the nature of opinion. The decision of the respondents is upheld. No action is called for on the part of the Commission. The matter is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000240:

14. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 22.10.2013 before the CPIO, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai, seeking information whether processing of cheque is done on the same day or it can be retained by bank to process as per choice of bank for a future date; in the event cheque is passed, whether any rubber stamp of bank with signature with date will be affixed on cheque etc through five points.

14.1 Vide letter dated 09.11.2013 the CPIO gave a point-wise reply to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 14.11.2013. The FAA vide order dated 20.12.2013 held that the appellant did not seek any document or record which were held by the public authority but he had stated some situations in the day to day 14 affairs of the Bank and had sought CPIO's response on those situations which were not information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO had used his prudence to provide some information, related to the issues raised by the appellant. The FAA concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

14.2 Aggrieved with the response of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

14.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents offered the same argument as advanced by the CPIO, earlier.

14.4 The Commission holds that the appellant had not sought any information rather than he stated some situations in the day to day affairs of the Bank and mentioned bank's procedure, which the CPIO had adequately replied to the appellant. The decision of the respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001064 & CIC/MP/A/2014/001123:

15. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 06.03.2014 before the CPIO, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai, in response to his earlier RTI application replied by the CPIO vide letter No. RTI/3238 dated 23.11.2011 seeking copies of all circulars issued and in force during 1994 to 2011; and rule regarding one time settlement (OTS) and written off accounts in full and sought rule regarding writing off of those accounts on assignment of such accounts to any Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) by Bank without taking prior approval of Export Credit & Guarantee Corporation (ECGC).

15.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 10.04.2014 informed the appellant that the information sought at point 1 was vague and not specific; in response to point 2 the appellant was informed that no rule was framed for the hypothetical situation imagined by him in his application. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 17.04.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 15.05.2014 while upholding the reply of the CPIO 15 informed the appellant that the information sought did not pertain to the SBI and advised him to visit the website of the ECGC for desired information.

15.2 Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

15.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that SBI had issued more than 3000 circulars from 1994 to 2011 and no soft copies were available because these were not put on their website. If the appellant gave a specific date and number of circular, that can be provided to the appellant, in case it is available with the respondents.

15.4 The Commission observes that at point no. 1 the appellant sought copies of all circulars during 1994 to 2011 without giving the number and date of circulars. In case he wants copies of some specific circular, he is advised to provide number and date of that circular to the respondents. The CPIO is directed to provide copies of circulars on receipt of the information from the appellant. The CPIO is further directed to provide copy of rules regarding writing off of those accounts on assignment of such accounts that are assigned to any Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC), in case it is available in their record, to the appellant. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within twenty days of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000003:

16. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 03.09.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on two points: (1) Master circular No. RBI/2011-12/60 DBOD No. DIR (Exp). Bc.04/0.02.002/2011-12 dated 01-July-2011 amended from Time to Time & updated

- is mandatory for commercial Bank or Advisory/ Directive form RBI to Commercial Banks; (2) Clause No. 9.1.2, No. 8.2 & No. 8.2.3 of above mentioned Master Circular of RBI is mandatory or optional for commercial Banks.

16.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 4.10.2013 provided reply that information sought at Serial No. 1 & 2 alongside, did not come within the definition of Information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 11.10.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 23.10.2013 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

16.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

16.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided point-wise reply to the appellant. The FAA had concurred with the decision of the CPIO. Hence his appeal was treated as disposed of. They stated that the appellant had sought the opinion of the CPIO concerned in his RTI application which did not come within the purview of the definition of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

16.4 Having heard the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission observes that the appellant had sought specific clarification on Master Circular of RBI dated 1.7.2011. The CPIO is directed to provide specific reply to the appellant in response to point 1 and 2 of the RTI application within fifteen days of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000004:

17. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 17.06.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on four points: (1) the dates on which denial/ non- release of sanctioned export credit to SAOFL was brought to the notice of the Chief Executive of the Bank explaining the reasons for rejection during year 2000 to 2011; (2) the date on which the Internal auditor's comment on such denial of sanctioned export credit along with the timely/delayed sanction & release of Export credit to SAOFL within the time schedule prescribed by the RBI during year 2000 to 2011, were made and submitted to the branch for reporting to the appropriate authority in Bank.; (3) copy of review note submitted at quarterly intervals to the Board on the position of sanction of credit limit 17 to SAOFL during 2000-2001. The note may cover explanation for delay & denial in sanctioning of EPC and its non-release to SAOFL and reason thereof; (4) All the export orders were denied Export Credit by SBI to SAOFL despite EBI's clear-cut directive to Banks that "no worthwhile export order should be denied export credit from the Banks" as mentioned in the clause no.9.1.2 of above mentioned master circular of RBI", therefore what remedial steps were taken by the SBI to provide Export Credit to SAOFL for Export orders during year 2000 to 2011.

17.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.07.2013 denied the information sought in point no. 1, 2 & 3 u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 and also denied information sought in point no. 4 on the ground that it did not come within the definition of Information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 25.07.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 19.08.2013 directed the CPIO to provide the date, if the matter was brought to the notice of the Chairman (Chief Executive as stated by the appellant), if available; as regard to the information sought at S. No 2 provide the date on which the internal auditor gave any comments on such denial or If, auditor has not made any comments on denial, inform accordingly. On point nos. 3 and 4, the FAA concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

17.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

17.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO concerned had complied the FAA's order vide his letter dated 12.10.2013 in which he had informed that appellant on point no. 1 that the matter was not required to be brought to the notice of the Chief Executive and explained that though export credit was sanctioned to the ASOFL but no export credit was provided to them. On point 2, they informed that no such comments were made as no review note was prepared before 2011 because loan was regular at that time. On point 3, they stated that it was done as per the agreement between the bank and the party concerned. On point 4, they submitted that they had provided him the alternate option of FCNR(B) i.e. Foreign Currency Non-resident (Bank) instead of EPC (Export Policy Credit) cover as per the ECGC circular to reduce the liability of the appellant.

17.4 Having heard the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission observes that a clear reply should be provided to the appellant on point 4, therefore, the Commission directs the respondents to provide the same within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000074:

18. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 04.09.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on three points: (1) action taken u/s. 13 of the SARFAESI act and its various section/subsections against SAOFL has been taken on 12-Oct-2011 and on subsequent dates by SBI only or by SBI-lead Consortium; (2) matter No. B/121/1011-2012 was filed before the Hon'ble District Magistrate; Betul by State Bank of India or by SBI-lead Consortium; (3) application to Multai Police Station on 30-Jan-2012/03-Feb-2012 by SBI- Multai was made on behalf of SBI or SBI-lead Consortium for obtaining police protection for so-called "Kurki action".

18.1. Vide letter dated 5.10.2013 the CPIO replied with reference to point 1, that action was taken under SARFAESI Act, 2002, on behalf of the consortium; on point 2, that the Case No. B/121/12-13 was filed on behalf of the consortium, under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and on point 3, that action was taken under SARFAESI Act, 2002, on behalf of the Consortium. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 11.10.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 23.10.2013 concurred with the reply of the CPIO and also commented that the appellant could not seek further information in his subsequent appeal other than what he had sought in his RTI application.

18.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

18.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided point-wise reply to the appellant. The FAA had concurred with the decision of the CPIO. Hence his appeal was treated as disposed of. Regarding 19 Point 1 of the RTI application, they stated that the SAOFL was securitized to the consortium of banks comprising the SBI of India as lead bank and Greater Bombay Co-operative bank as other bank and that action under SARFAESI Act, 2002 can be initiated by whose interest it jeopardized. The assets are scrutinized to the consortium therefore at the time of taking possession, the consortium consent is essential.

18.4 Having heard the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission upholds the decision of respondents on point nos. 2 & 3; however, directs the respondents to provide a clear reply on point no. 1 to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000075:

19. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 17.06.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on five points: (1) copy of SBI letter no. CB/BPL/ADVS/2010-11/274 dated 15.07.2010 to ECGC; (2) copy of SBI reply to ECGC letter no. ECGC/GTEE/BPICG/2010 dated 09.03.2010; (3) copy of SBI reply to ECGC letter no. INDORE/BPICG/2010 dated 02.08.2010; (4) the date on which the SBI intimated to ECGC that account of SAOFL has turned NPA- copy of such a letter and reason thereof; (5) reasons for applying for ECGC cover by SBI [that too under renewal category for non existence facility to SAOFL], to ECGC on 29.06.2011 vide SBI letter No. CB/BPL/ADVS/2011-12/375 dated 29.06.2011 along with the copy of resolution/sanction note & copy of proposal in respect of Shri Adishwar Oils and Fats limited as Bank has already issued its NPA letter to SAOFL on 11.05.2011.

19.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.07.2013 denied the information u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 25.07.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 17.08.2013 concurred with the decision of CPIO on point no. 1 and held that the information sought was exempt under section 8 (1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005; directed the CPIO on point nos. 2 & 3 to furnish a fact based reply to the appellant; held on point no. 4 that the date of which SBNI informed ECGC that the account of 20 SAOFL has turned NPA should be provided. He, however, denied the copy of the letter under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005; On point no. 5 he held that, it was not information as per section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 and hence denied. In compliance of the FAA's order, vide letter dated 12.10.2013, the CPIO informed on point nos. 2 & 3 that no reply to those letters was warranted and on point 4 informed that no such information was there in their record.

19.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

19.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. On point nos. 2 & 3 the respondents stated that no such reply as mentioned by the appellant was warranted by them. On point 4, they stated that copy of letter cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act; as regards point no. 5 the information sought did not fall within the ambit of information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act. .

19.4 Having heard the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission upholds the decision of respondents on all the points except on point no. 4, on which the Commission directs the respondents to provide a clear reply to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000096:

20. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 09.09.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on six points: (1) the date on which Shri Pardeep Khosla signed agreement on behalf of SBI with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd (KMBL) to assign accounts of KNOIL & CRYSTAL in year 2006 against a consideration; (2) along with the signing of the above mentioned agreement (as per point No.1 above), did SBI pass on all the recourse against borrower KNOIL & CRYSTAL to KMBL or retain recourse with itself (SBI) against KNOIL & Crystal? (3) the date on which KMBL directly informed to SBI that it (KMBL) has settled matter with KNOIL/ Crystal; (4) the date on which Shri Pardeep Khosla reviewed the ECGC conditional claim received matter before assigning the KNOIL & Crystal accounts to KMBL, provide such copy of the review note; (5) nature 21 of steps taken by Shri Pardeep Khosla to comply the terms & conditions of the conditional claim money SBI had received from ECGC in the year 2002 in respect of KNOIL & Crystal before assigning the accounts to KMBL; (6) as the conditional claim money become inadmissible as per contract between SBI & ECGC, the basis on which after sharing recoveries with ECGC, SBI has retained claim money and not refund to ECGC due to non-compliance of terms and conditions of claim payment and contract between SBI & ECGC. He added that he was not third party because SBI supplied his name along with other names in Report of Default (ROD) to SBI to get claim, thus he is the affected party.

20.1. Vide letter dated 17.10.2013 the CPIO informed the appellant on point 1 that Shri Pardeep Khosla signed the agreement with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (KMBL) on 16.01.2006; on point 2 that SBI did not retain any recourse; on point 3 that KMBL did not inform about settlement of dues directly to SBI; on point nos. 4 & 5 that Shri Pardeep Khosla was authorized only to sign the deed of assignment and on point 6 that the matter was settled as per the arrangement between SBI and ECGC. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point nos. 2, 4, 5 & 6 of his RTI application, the appellant filed appeal on 21.10.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 17.08.2013 concurred with the view of CPIO on point nos. 2 & 6 and informed the appellant on point nos. 4 & 5 that Shri Pardeep Khosala had no role to play in reviewing the claim with the ECGC. Shri Khosala was authorised only to sign the deed of assignment. Hence, the question of Shri Khosala initiating steps to comply with the terms & condition of claim money received by SBI did not arise. With reference to point 6 it was stated that the appellant was not a party to the agreement.

20.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

20.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise information to the appellant. As regard the information sought at point 4 and 5, Shri Pardeep Khosala had no role to play in reviewing the claim with the ECGC. Shri Khosala was authorized only to sign the deed of 22 assignment. Hence, the question of Shri Khosala initiating steps to comply with the terms and conditions of claim money received by the SBI did not arise.

20.4 Having heard the submissions of the respondents the Commission upholds the decision of respondents and holds that the information available with the respondents has been already provided to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000241:

21. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 14.10.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on five points: (1) copy of the "KURKI" order available with State Bank of India on or before

30.Jan.2012 in favour of State Bank of India[SBI] against Shri Adishwar Oil and Fats Ltd.[SAOFL]; (2) name and address of the authority/Court that issued such "KURKI" order in favour of SBI against the company SAOFL to "KURK" Plant & Machinery of the factory at Multai (3) povide a copy of such "KURKI" order; (4) the basis on which the Multai Branch wrote to Multai police vide letter Dt 30.Jan.2011 (submitted by them to Multai police on 03.Feb.2011) on the SBI's behest saying that "Commercial Branch Bhopal going to KURK the plant and machinery of the factory on 03.Feb.2011 and sought police protection on the day at 9.30 am for supporting KURKI ACTION of Bank"; (5) the Multai Branch Manager or any official of Multai Branch who was present along with the officials of Commercial Branch Bhopal on 03 Feb.2011 at Multai along with police protection or not present, in front of gate of the company premises Shri Adishwar Oil and Fats Ltd for KURKI action for which police protection was sought by the bank.

21.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.11.2013 informed the appellant on point nos.1, 2 & 3 that the information had been already provided vide their letter No SAMB/BPL/LRM/2835 Dt 19.09.2013; on point 4 that the information could not be provided as it did not fall under the definition of information as specified under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005; on point no. 5 that the Branch Manager of Multai Branch was present for taking possession u\s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. 2002. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point nos. 4 & 5, the appellant filed appeal on 22.11.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 23 23.12.2013 concurred with the decision of the CPIO on point no. 4 and informed the appellant on point nos. 5 that the information had been provided by the CPIO vide letter No SAMB/BPL/LRM/3396 dated 12.11.2013.

21.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

21.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise information to the appellant. The FAA had concurred with the decision of the CPIO and also explained the matter w.r.t. point no. 5 to the appellant. they also stated on point no. 4 that action was taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking possession and also clarified that it was not Kurki order as alleged by the appellant.

21.4 Having heard the submissions of the respondents the Commission upholds the decision of respondents on all the points except on point no. 4, on which the Commission directs the respondents to provide a clear reply to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000263:

22. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 14.10.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on three points: (1) copy of the "KURKI" order available with the branch as on that basis the bank wrote to Multai Police Station on 30-Jan-2012/ 03-Feb-2012 for police protection for supporting proposed " Kurki Action "against Shri Adishwar Oils and Fats Limited, at Multai on 03-feb-2012; (2) name & designation of the officer who signed such letter dated 30-Jan-2013 and submitted to Multai police for obtaining police protection for "Kurki Action" as written in the letter; (3) name and designation of the officer of accompanying the commercial Branch officers and who was present outside gate of Shri Adishwar Oils & Fats Limited[SAOFL], at Multai on 03-Feb-2012 with police protection for so called Kurki Action.

22.1. Vide letter dated 21.11.2013 the CPIO denied the information sought in point no. 1 on the ground that the Information sought was not available on record of the Bank, as they were not in receipt of any such "Kurki Order"; informed on point no. 2 that the Branch Manager, Multai Branch had signed the letter referred to; and informed on point no. 3 that the Branch Manager, Field Officer & RMRO of Multai Branch accompanied Commercial Branch officers for taking symbolic possession under SARFAESI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 25.11.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 30.12.2013 concurred with the decision of CPIO on point nos. 1 & 3 and on S. No 2, directed the CPIO to provide the name and designation of Multai Branch officer who had signed the letter dated 30.1.2013. In compliance of the FAA's order, vide letter dated 10.01.2014, the CPIO provided the details of the officer of Multai Branch who had signed the letter dated 30.01.2012 i.e. Shri S. K. Soni, Branch Manager Multai.

22.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

22.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that all the information sought for by the appellant had been already provided to him.

22.4 Having heard the submissions of the respondents the Commission upholds the decision of respondents and holds that the information available with the respondents had been already provided to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000283:

23. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 24.10.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on two points: (1) the date on which by correct position of SAL parties, bank responded to ECGC for their (ECGC) letter No. ECGC/GTEE/BIPCG/2010 Dt 09.03.2010 and No. INDORE/BIPCG/2010 Dt 02.08.2010, in which reason of only names being in SAL has been mentioned and no mention of proper application, which should have been made by SBI, which SBI was bound to apply correctly and procedurally for SAL 25 parties. Also provide copies of such proper application/ representation made to ECGC for their above mentioned letters; (2) reply to ECGC letter NO INDORE/GTEE/07-08 Dt 22.08.2007 was warranted but provide him reason for not responding to ECGC in which clearly mentioned that the names are being in SAL, yet ECGC sought clarification / information from Bank.[Bank already admitted on 12.09.2012 that no reply to this letter by commercial Branch Sent].

23.1. Vide letter dated 11.12.2013 the CPIO informed the appellant on point no. 1 that they did not reply to the letters Nos. ECGC/GETEE/BIPCG/2010 Dt 09.03.2010 and INDORE/BIPCG/2010 Dt 02.08.2010 and on point no. 2 that the information could not be provided as it did not fall under the definition of 'information' as specified under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point no. 2, the appellant filed an appeal on 14.11.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 19.12.2013 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

23.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission expressing his dissatisfaction with regard to the response on point 2 of the RTI application.

23.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise information to the appellant. The FAA had concurred with the decision of the CPIO. Hence his appeal was treated as disposed of. The respondents submitted that no information was available with them with relation to the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI application.

23.4 Having heard the submissions of the respondents the decisions of the respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000284:

24. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 18.10.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on four points: (1) the date on which the SBI intimated to Dilip Shrishrimal that ECGC has paid Conditional claim amount to SBI in respect of KNOIL & Crystal and received by 26 SBI- Provide a copy of such letter of SBI to him; (2) the date on which SBI intimated to Dilip Shrishrimal that SBI has paid partial recoveries to ECGC in respect of KNOIL & Crystal out of claim received amount. provide him a copy of such letter; (3) the date on which SBI intimated him, after sharing partial recoveries with ECGC, that in future this ECGC matter will be dealt by Kotak, as those account [KNOIL & CRYSTAL] has been assigned to Kotak; (4) the date on which the SBI closed matter of KNOIL & Crystal and ECGC, provide a copy of such letter from SBI to ECGC and intimate letter thereof to him.

24.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.11.2013 informed the appellant on point no.1 and 4 that the information had been already provided vide their letter Nos SAMB/BPL/LRM/984 Dt 22.06.2013 and No. SAMB/BPL/LRM/1061 dated 28.06.2013; on point 2 & 3 informed that information was not on record. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point no. 4, the appellant filed an appeal on 22.11.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2013 concurred with the decision of CPIO on point no. 4.

24.1. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission reiterating his dissatisfaction over reply to point 4 of his RTI application.

24.2. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise information to the appellant. The FAA had also agreed with the CPIO. They stated that information had been provided to the appellant on point 4 vide their letter dated 28.6.2013.

24.3 Having heard the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission upholds the decision of respondents on all the points. However, the CPIO is directed to provide copy of letter No. SAMB/BPL/LRM/ 1061 dated 28.06.2013 to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000367:

25. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 16.11.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on two points: (1) copy of such arrangement between SBI and ECGC by which SBI retained balance conditional claim money, which became inadmissible as per condition of conditional claim payment from ECGC to SBI; (2) Information on status of recourse- terminated by SBI or recourse passed on to Kotak 25.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.12.2013 denied the information on point no. 1 u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 and informed on point no. 2 that the information had already been provided vide their letter No SAMB/BPL/LRM/3079 Dt 17.10.2013. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 27.12.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 29.01.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.

25.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission stating that he had been denied information on point 1 and was given incorrect information on point 2.

25.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise information to the appellant. They stated that information had been provided to the appellant vide their letter dated 17.10.2013 on point2 and. added that the information sought for on point 1 was as per the agreement between SBI and ECGC. Therefore, the information was confidential and denied under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. They also stated that the appellant had used unparliamentary words in his RTI application which was totally demoralizing.

25.4 The Commission upholds the decision of respondents on point no. 1 and the Commission directs the respondents to provide a clear reply to the appellant on point no. 2, within one week of receipt of this order. The Commission also takes note of this fact that the appellant had used unparliamentary language in his application which is totally unacceptable and uncalled for, therefore he is advised not to use such words in future. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000579:

26. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 20.01.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on two points: (1) whether the DGM of SBI-SAMB-Bhopal[name not known to him] & Shri DD Sen-AGM of SBI-SAMB-Bhopal is fully conversant with the policies of ECGC and its matter & procedure and implications of terms and conditions of the received CONDITIONAL CLAIM by SBI in respect of any account and/or accounts of KNOIL/Crystal; (2) whether that DGM of SBI-SAMB-Bhopal name not known & Shri DD Sen -AGM of SBI-SAMB-Bhopal is fully conversant with the point no 7 of ECGC Circular No. HO/Bank Dvn/210/07-08 dated 06-Aug-2007[this circular is from ECGC to Bank and available on public domain].

26.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.02.2014 denied the information on the ground that the information desired in the RTI application under reference was not defined as information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 24.02.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA), who vide order dated 20.03.2014 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

26.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission stating that he had been denied information.

26.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise reply to the appellant. The respondents submitted that the appellant had sought opinion/clarification from the CPIO concerned which did not come within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.

26.4. The Commission upholds the decisions of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000594:

27. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 12.11.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on three points: (1) at the time of hearing of above mentioned case No. 001565 Dtd. 30-Oct- 2013 before CIC, whether the information was known to SBI/Concerned officer or not as CPIO, that no prior approval was sought by SBI from ECGC before assigning the KNOIL/Crystal to Kotak; (2) name of the officer not accepting/acknowledging to Dilip Shrishrimal & before CIC that SBI has not taken prior approval of ECGC before assigning KNOIL/Crystal to Kotak; (3) provide him copy of letter asking prior approval sought from ECGC by SBI before assigning KNOIL/Crystal to Kotak.

27.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.12.2013 denied the information on point no. 1 on the ground that it did not fall under the definition of information under RTI Act 2005; denied information on point no. 2 u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and also denied information on point no. 3 on the ground of that the information sought was not available on record, as already advised to him vide their letter No. SAMB/BPL/JD/315 dated 10.05.2012. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 27.12.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 29.01.2014 held that the information sought at S. No 1 & 2 was vague and not information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.

27.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission stating that he had been denied information on points 1, 2 and 3.

27.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided point-wise reply to the appellant and that the information was quite old and the CPIO did not handle the case.

27.4 The Commission is not satisfied with the response on point 2 and 3 relating to providing the appellant the name of the officer and copy of letter asking for prior approval of ECGC by SBI before assigning KNOIL/Crystal to Kotak. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide a clear reply to the appellant on point no. 2 & 3, within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000668:

28. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 08.01.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on three points: (1) whether SBI was aware that ECGC has policy to give cover to exporters though their names appearing in Specific Approval List [SAL] of ECGC, if applied by Bank correctly & procedurally, if so inform me details of such policy & procedures?; (2) Is SBI aware that ECGC has policy to remove names of exporters whose names appeared in Specific Approval List [SAL] of ECGC despite full recovery of claim paid not received, if applied by Bank correctly & procedurally, if so inform him the details of such policy & procedure; (3) provide him copy of rule available & guideline in Bank in this matter.

28.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.01.2014 denied the information on the ground that the information desired in the RTI application under reference was not defined as information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 05.02.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA), who vide order dated 25.02.2014 concurred with the reply of the CPIO. The FAA, however, he advised the appellant to visit the ECGC website and view the circular in the matter.

28.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

28.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided point-wise reply to the appellant. The respondents submitted that the appellant had sought opinion/clarification of the CPIO concerned which did not 31 fall under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.They also stated that only the ECGC ahd ;issued the guidelines which are available on ECGC website.

28.4. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001022:

29. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 31.01.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on three points: (1) the date on which DGM (name not known) & AGM (name not known) of SAMB Bhopal come to know the existence of ECGC circular to all Banks- No. HO/BanksDvn/210/07-08 Dtd 06-Aug-2007; (2) the date on which DGM & AGM of SAMB Bhopal took cognizance of point No. 7 of the above mentioned circular; (3) the date on which DGM & AGM of SAMB Bhopal took cognizance of ECGC disclosures vide CIC compliance letter No. ECGC/Indore/RTI/2013-14 Dtd.23-Oct- 2013.

29.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.03.2014 denied the information on the ground that the information desired in the RTI application was not on record. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 08.03.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 16.04.2014 observed that the information sought by the appellant at point 1 to 3 of the application and appeal was not specific information falling within the purview of "information" under sec 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Further, the nature of information sought by the appellant was not maintained and therefore could not be provided.

29.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

29.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided point-wise response to the appellant. The respondents submitted that the appellant had sought opinion/clarification from the CPIO concerned which did not fall under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.

29.4. Having heard the submissions of the respondents and perused the documents on file, the Commission upholds the decision from the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001066:

30. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 06.02.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch (SAMB), Bhopal; seeking information on two points: (1) the date on which SBI sent and received letters to/from the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited in respect of Shri Adishwar Oils and Fats Limited- provide subject matter/replies & details thereof; (2) provide copies of such letters exchanged between SBI-GBCB-SBI as per Point No.1 as above.

30.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.03.2014 informed the appellant on point no. 1 that the SBI sent and received letters to/from GBCB on 17.03.2010, 14.03.2011, 23.04.2011, 23.04.2011, 25.04.2011, 20.05.2011, 24.05.2011, 10.06.2011, 15.06.2011, 14.09.2011, 24.09.2011, 29.10.2011, 02.11.2011, 03.11.2011, 08.11.2011, 23.11.2011, 09.12.2011, 15.12.2011, 02.01.2012, 17.02.2012 and denied information on point no. 2 u/s 8(1)(d) & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 12.03.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA), who vide order dated 16.04.2014 agreed with the decision of the CPIO.

30.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission giving no specific reason for his dissatisfaction with the response of the respondents.

30.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided point-wise reply to the appellant. The respondents submitted that the appellant had been provided all the information available with them.

30.4. Having heard the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents on CIC file, the Commission observes that the available information with 33 the respondents had been provided to the appellant and upholds the decisions of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001227:

31. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 26.04.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, RTI Department, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; seeking information on four points regarding the date of enforcement of the amendments made in the year 2013 in SARFAESI Act, 2002 etc. 31.1. Vide letter dated 07.05.2014 the CPIO denied information on point no. 1 pertaining to the enforcement of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on the ground that the information sought was not held with them and denied information on point nos. 2, 3 & 4 on the ground that the information sought for was in the form of opinion and hence was not 'information' as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 12.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2014 agreed with the views of the CPIO.

31.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

31.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided point-wise response to the appellant. They stated that on point no.1 & 2 that they did not have any records pertaining to the date of enforcement of SARFAESI Act, 2005 and its amendments as sought by the appellant; point nos. 3 & 4 was not information rather opinion was being sought which was not within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.

31.4. As the information sought by the appellant was not held by the respondents, the decision of the respondents is upheld. However, the Commission directs the respondents to provide the address of website to the appellant where information on point nos. 1 & 2 in respect of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is available, within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001310:

32. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 31.03.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, RTI Department, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; seeking information on three points regarding the date of circulation of circular no. HO/Banks Dvn/210/07-08 dt. 06.08.2007 of ECGC to MCG & SAM of SBI etc. 32.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.04.2014 denied the information on the ground that the information sought was not available; however circular was issued on 05.11.2011. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 01.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 07.06.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.

32.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

32.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise information to the appellant. The respondents submitted that the above mentioned circular was uploaded on the intranet and instantly it was available to all concerned. They also added it was their general practice of uploading any circular on their bank's intranet and it could be accessed by any official of their bank, so there was no question of manual circulation of any circulation and it was their Bank's policy to save paper.

32.4. Having heard the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001475:

33. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 16.04.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, 35 RTI Department, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; seeking information on one point regarding the date on which SBI published photograph in newspapers of Shri Vijay mallya "as defaulter" in respect of accounts of KINGFISHER AIRLINES repayment of loan or any other loan account.

33.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 15.05.2014 denied the information on the ground that the information sought was not held with them. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 21.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.

33.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

33.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise information to the appellant. The respondents confirmed that they had no records pertaining to the appellant's query.

33.4. Having heard the submissions of the respondents the Commission upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/002168:

34. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 23.08.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, RTI Department, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; seeking information on seven points regarding the date on which SBI official met and discussed with the ECGC officials in his matter related to KNOIL/Crystal etc in reference to the letter no. ECGC/RT/2014- 15 dt. 24.06.2014 to Shri Arvind Mehta,JS, Ministry of Commerce in which the ECGC admitted that SBI officials had met the ECGC officials in respect of his matter.

34.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.09.2014 furnished reply on point nos. 1, 2 & 3 and denied information on point nos. 4 to 7 on the ground that the information sought was not available with them. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point nos. 4 to 36 7, the appellant filed appeal on 30.09.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 21.10.2014 concurred with the views of the CPIO.

34.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

34.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise response to the appellant. The respondents stated above mentioned letter dated 24.6.2014 was not a correspondence between SBI and ECGC; where as it was between ECGC and the Shri Arvind Mehta, JS. They added that they were not in possession of copy of the said letter, so they cannot comment on that. They also added that the appellant had made presumptions in point nos. 4 to 7 and not sought any information.

34.4. The Commission observes that the information available with the respondents had been provided to the appellant and upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001604:

35. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 01.05.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, RTI Department, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; seeking information on two points regarding the number of SAL borrowers of SBI, their bank and /or Mid-Corporate group of Bank had given Pre-shipment export packing credit (EPC) "with/without prior approval of ECGC" during years 2000 to 2004 etc. 35.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 05.06.2014 denied the information by taking plea of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point nos. 4 to 7, the appellant filed an appeal on 09.06.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 18.07.2014 concurred with the views of the CPIO.

35.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

35.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided point-wise reply to the appellant. The respondents stated that the information sought was voluminous in nature as they did not maintain such records and collection/compilation of the information sought would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

35.4. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondents as collating information for all SBI borrowers and where pre-shipment export packing credit had been given with or without approval of ECGC which was not maintained by them in the form asked for will result in avoidable diversion of resources. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001514:

36. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 01.05.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, RTI Department, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; seeking information on three points regarding annexure III as mentioned at Point no. 16 of SBI e-circular no. CPP/CIR/SRT/84 dt. 23.11.2011 etc. 36.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.05.2014 furnished point wise reply to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point nos. 4 to 7, the appellant filed an appeal on 20.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 25.06.2014 concurred with the views of the CPIO.

36.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission, but he did not make any specific point in his second appeal.

36.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had not received the RTI application and second appeal; therefore they were not 38 prepared to contest the claim of the appellant and requested the Commission to provide a copy of the RTI application and subsequent appeals, so that they could respond accordingly.

36.4. The Commission provided a copy of RTI Application and subsequent appeals to the respondents. The Commission directs the respondents to provide an appropriate reply within fifteen days of the receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Hearings held on 20 th February, 2015:

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001062:

37. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated February 10, 2014, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhopal seeking information regarding date on which the branch of the respondents has received 19 Recovery reminders from ECGC, name & designation of the officer who attended and responded to the recovery letters from ECGC etc. through a total of 5 points relating to Crystal Resources Account.

37.1. The CPIO, SBI, Commercial Branch, Bhopal vide reply dated 18.03.2014, under query no. 1 furnished the date of receipt of three letters and with respect to thirteen letters informed the appellant that the information was not available. The CPIO denied the information sought under query nos. 2, 3 & 5 stating that the information cannot be given in terms of section 8(1)(g) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and information sought vide point no.4 was not available with them. Not satisfied with CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated March 24, 2014 to the first 39 appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated April 28, 2014, the FAA, SBI, Mid Corporate RO, Indore upheld the decision of CPIO.

37.2 Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.

37.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant stood as guarantor for the various credit facilities availed by M/s. Shri Adishwar Oil and Fats Ltd from the SBI, Commercial Branch. Subsequently the borrower company and its guarantors committed default in repayment of the due amount. Therefore, the Bank classified the above account as Non-Performing Assets as per the guidelines of RBI. Subsequently the Bank initiated recovery proceedings as per the law. Since they did not repay the due amount, the account along with relevant records and files was transferred to SBI, SAMB for continuing the recovery proceedings. Subsequently the above account was sold to M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., as per the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and under the guidelines of RBI. Since the records were transferred to SBI, SAMB, Bhopal no information was available with them on Point 4. The appellant was also provided an opportunity for inspection of relevant records pertaining to Crystal Resources, but he did not turn up. Information on points 2, 3 and 5 was denied to the appellant under Section 8(1)(g), in view of the attitude of the appellant and the false criminal complaints lodged by him against the officials of the Bank. The respondents also sense a threat to the life of the officers if the names and designations of such employees are forwarded to the appellant.

37.4 The Commission holds that information as per available records had been provided by the respondents to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001063:

38. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated February 10, 2014, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Main Branch, Mahasamund (CG) seeking information regarding date on 40 which the branch of the respondents has received 19 Recovery reminders from ECGC, name & designation of the officer who attended and responded the recovery letters from ECGC etc. through a total of 5 points relating to KN Oil account.

38.1 The CPIO, SBI, RBO, Raipur vide reply dated 15.3.2014 informed the appellant that the branch had received three letters. The remaining, if received by the branch, no record was found there in respect of KN Oil account; The CPIO denied the information sought under query nos. 2 & 3 stating that the information cannot be given in terms of section 8(1)(g) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005; in response to point 4 the appellant was informed that the letter was not transferred to other branch of the Bank; and in response to point 5 the appellant was informed that as the account was not in existence in the branch, the bank has decided not to respond to ECGC. Disclosure of the name of the official is exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Not satisfied with CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 05.05, 2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 26.04.2014 while upholding the reply of the CPIO held that the CPIO had already furnished point-wise information.

38.2. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.

38.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant stood as guarantor for the various credit facilities availed by M/s. Shri Adishwar Oil and Fats Ltd from the SBI, Commercial Branch. Subsequently the borrower company and its guarantors committed default in repayment of the due amount. Therefore, the Bank classified the above account as Non-Performing Assets as per the guidelines of RBI. Subsequently the Bank initiated recovery proceedings as per the law. The borrower did not repay the due amount, the account along with relevant records and files transferred to SBI, SAMB for continuing the recovery proceedings. Subsequently the above account was sold to M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., as per the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and under the guidelines of RBI. Since the records were transferred to SBI, SAMB, Bhopal no 41 information was available with them on Point 4. The appellant was also provided an opportunity for inspection of relevant records pertaining to his Crystal Resources, but he did not turn up. Information on points 2, 3 and 5 denied to the appellant, in view of the attitude of the appellant and the false criminal complaints against the officials of the Bank and since there is a threat to the life of the officers, the names and designations of such employees. The respondent had quoted the wrong section for denying the name and designation of the officers involved in the matter.

38.4 The Commission directs the CPIO to provide designation without disclosing the name of the officer who received the recovery reminders from ECGC, to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001286:

39 The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 31.03. 2014, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Bhopal seeking information regarding date on which the branch of the respondents has received the ECGC circular No. HO/Banks Dvn/210/07-08 Dtd.06-Aug-2007 to MCG from Corporate centre of SBI/ higher authorities in SAM/SAMG, name & designation of the officer who received the circular, name & designation of the officer who reviewed the circular especially point no. 7 in respect of complaint made by him for KNOIL/Crystal account etc. through a total of 2 points.

39.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 24.04.2014 denied the information sought stating that the information cannot be given in terms of section 8(1)(g) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 29.04.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 20.05.2014 upheld the decision of CPIO.

39.2 Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.

39.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that Information was denied to the appellant under Section 8(1)(g), in view of the attitude 42 of the appellant and as false criminal complaints against the officials of the Bank were made. They perceived a threat to the life of the officers, therefore, the names and designations of such employees not provided.

39.4 The Commission directs the CPIO to provide designation without disclosing the name of the officer who received the ECGC circular in question and who reviewed the circular, to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001368:

40 The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 23.04. 2014, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhopal seeking details of steps taken by the bank for refunding Rs. 1,62,85,385/- to ECGC to stop recovery reminders from ECGC to the respondent's Office as ECGC has said that 20 recovery reminders during 2006-2014 in respect of crystal account and not responded by the SBI etc. 40.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 16.05.2014 denied the information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 stating that no specific query had been raised by the appellant. Not satisfied with CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 20.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 12.06.2014 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

40.2 Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.

40.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated their decision during the hearing.

40.4 The Commission holds that the appellant had sought information on a specific query, the CPIO is directed to a pass speaking order on appellant's RTI application within two weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001290:

41. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 12.03.2014, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, SAMB, Bhopal seeking information regarding date on which SBI/Commercial Branch/Bhopal's MCG accounts including account of Shri Adhishwar Oils and Fats Limited came under MCG-Office at Indore, date on which MCG- office at Indore came under the control of MCG Credit Committee of Ahmedabad Region, Mid Corporate Credit Committee, Ahmedabad came into existence etc. through a total of 4 points.

41.1 The CPIO, SBI Commercial Branch, vide reply dated 24.04.2014, with regards to query no. 1 furnished the information and denied the information sought under query nos. 2 & 3 stating that the desired information was of commercial confidence of the bank and therefore could not be given u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 29.04.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 20.05.2014 upheld the decision of CPIO.

41.2 Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.

41.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant filed the RTI application initially before SBI, SAMB, Bhopal. The CPIO, SBI, SAMB transferred point nos. 1, 2, 3 to the CPIO, Commercial Branch, which was replied to vide letter dated 24.04.2014. The CPIO, SBI, SAMB vide letter No. SAMB/BPL/LRM/4439 dated 29.03.2014 replied to the appellant on point no. 4 stating that during the year 2000 the account of Shri Adishwar Oils and Fats Ltd. at Commercial Branch, Bhopal was controlled by Bhopal Local Head Office.

41.4. The Commission holds that the respondents provided information as per available records and permissible under the RTI Act to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001171:

42 The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, submitted RTI application dated 23.04.2014, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Mid Corporate Group, Indore seeking information regarding date on which the SBI circular no. CPP/CIR/SRT/76 Dtd. 21-Oct-2011, No. CPP/CIR/SRT/77 Dtd. 05 Nov-2011 & No. CPP/CIR/SRT/84 Dtd. 23-Nov-2011 from Credit Policy and Procedure Department of SBI, all circulars including prior to Circular No. CPP/CIR/SRT/84 Dtd. 23-Nov-2011 during 2005-06 to 2011, copies of all circulars etc. through a total of 6 points.

42.1. Vide reply dated 21.05.2014, the CPIO under query no. 1 furnished the date of receipt of circulars at their Office and denied query no. 2 & 4 as the same was not specific. The CPIO denied the information sought under query nos. 3 & 6 stating that the information was related to third party and was commercial confidence therefore cannot be given in terms of section 8(1)(d) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005; on point no. 5 the appellant that the information sought was not applicable to them. Not satisfied with CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 27.05.2014 to the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that he had been incorrect and contradictory information. Vide order dated June 12, 2014, the FAA upheld the decision of CPIO.

42.2 Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.

42.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated their stand during the hearing.

42.4 Having considered the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide clear and categorical reply to the appellant on points 5 and 6 of the RTI application within one week of the receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

43. The respondents during the hearing alleged that the appellant is using abusive and unparliamentary language against them in his applications/ appeals. The Commission has taken the following view vide order dated 18 February 2009 45 in case No. CIC/OK/A/ 2006/ 00461 in the matter of Shri M.L. Gouhari Vs. Educational Consultants India Ltd. "Finally, the Commission has rejected a number of applications on the ground that intemperate, abusing and unparliamentary language has been used in the communications of the Appellant. This case clearly falls into that category... ...., the Respondents may yet come to the Commission in case the Appellant continues to use objectionable language and the Commission may then adjudicate on whether the case should be dismissed or be continued." The appellant is cautioned against the use of such abusive/ unparliamentary language in his appeals/ applications.

44. The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed fling of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the following observations of Pasayat J. in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11):"It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate 46 grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system."

45. The Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary The Apex Court in the matter of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay held that "the right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information (that is information other than those enumerated in Section 4(12)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to 47 other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a pubic authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."

46. The Commission advises the appellant to use the rights given to him under the RTI Act with full responsibility in future so as not to overburden the public authority and the Commission with frivolous and vexatious RTI applications which impinge on the scarce resources of the public authority. The appellant may like to use the cherished right given in the RTI Act, 2005 in a diligent manner so as to enable the public authority to use its time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently.

(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Ph. No. 011-26105027 Address of the parties:

Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, 213, Station Road, Mahasamund-493445 (Chattisgarh) The Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, State Bank Building, Plot No. 01, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011 (M.P) The GM (SAMG)/FAA State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Group (SAMG), Corporate Centre, 1st Floor, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 The DGM/CPIO, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, LHO Complex, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-462011.

The AGM/CPIO, State Bank of India, Mid Corporate Regional Office, Second Floor, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore.

The General Manager (MC)/FAA, State Bank of India, Mid Corporate Regional Office, Second Floor, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore.

The RM (RBO-2)/CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Administrative Office, Byron Bazar, Raipur-492001 (C.G) 49 The General Manager (NW-3)/FAA, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-462011.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission

Mrdilip Shrishrimal vs State Bank Of India on 9 March, 2015