Ajay Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 2 June, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ajay Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 2 June, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.05.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 15.02.2018 and first appeal dated 16.03.2018:-

Page 1 of 5

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.02.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Bhadra Branch, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 13.03.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 16.03.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.03.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 01.05.2018 before the State Information Commission, Rajasthan and the same was forwarded vide letter dated 24.05.2018 to the Central Information Commission which is under consideration.

Page 2 of 5

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 01.05.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take the necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.03.2018 denied the information clause

(j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 31.03.2018 directed the CPIO to provide the information sought on point nos. (12) to (16) of the RTI application, if the same was available in the material form, within 15 days. They further agreed with the views taken by the CPIO on remaining points.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Abhishek Singh, Regional Manager and CPIO, State Bank of India, Hanumangarh, attended the hearing through the audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought information relating to his KCC account of his father who had been paralyzed since 2015 and therefore he was not able to file any application. He argued that the respondent had arbitrarily denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought was related to the third party, disclosure of the same had no relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual, hence, could not be given under section 8 (1)

(j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that reply given by the respondent is evasive and misleading. It is noted that the appellant's father has been suffering from paralysis and he sought information on behalf of his father. It Page 3 of 5 appears that the respondent had perfunctorily denied the information without following the procedure under the RTI Act. Moreover, the respondent has neither followed the provisions laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act nor provided information to the appellant even after a lapse of around more than two years from the date of filing of this RTI application. In view of this, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Show Cause notice to Mr. Abhisek Singh, the present CPIO and Mr. Moti Singh Rajpurohit, the then CPIO, State Bank of India, Administrative Office-III Bikaner, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them.The present CPIO Mr. Abhisek Singh is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this show cause order as well as the notice to the then CPIO Mr. Moti Singh Rajpurohit and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) should reach the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide a revised point-wise reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 26.05.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE-4 LAL CHOWK HANUMANGARH JUNCTION, HANUMANGARH (Raj.)

- 335 512 THE F.A.A, STATE BANK OF INDIA, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, TILAK MARG, CSCHEME, JAIPUR - 302005 AJAY KUMAR Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission