Purnendu Prakash vs State Bank Of India on 22 June, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Purnendu Prakash vs State Bank Of India on 22 June, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.07.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the Page 1 of 4 appellant through his RTI application dated 21.12.2017 and first appeal dated 26.02.2018:-

(i) Please provide the information regarding actions taken by the RBO & the Branch for the payment against the work.

(ii) Please provide me the information regarding actions taken by the RBO & the Branch in connection with the letters of S S Enterprises dated 21/05/17, 20/09/17, 04/11/17 & 02/12/17.

(iii) Please provide me the information regarding status of the payment for which Bill No. SS/SBI/2014/Elct/04 dated 16/08/2014 was submitted twice to the Branch Manager, Satbarwa.

(iv) Please provide me the list of works ordered by you in financial year 2013- 14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 for Furnishing & Electrical works of Branches.

(v) Please provide me the list of works done in financial year 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 for Electrical works of Branches for which payments are not made yet.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 21.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Palamu, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 22.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.02.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 18.03.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 04.07.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 04.07.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide any information.

4. The CPIO as well as the FAA did not give any reply.

5. The appellant did not respond to the call and on behalf of the respondent, Shri R.C Jat, CPIO, attended the hearing through audio conference.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The respondent submitted that the appellant was submitted that the appellant was replied to vide letter dated 22.01.2018 and thereafter the appellant was again asked for evidence of his work vide letter dated 01.06.2020 but the appellant neither communicated nor sent any proof.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, notes that the appellant has requested for information in pursuance to his grievance relating to non-payment of his work. Further, the appellant has not submitted any proof of his work as requested for by the respondent. In view of this, the Commission observes that due reply has been given vide letter dated 01.06.2020. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 19.06.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA Regional Business Office, Court Compound, Daltonganj, Palamu- 822101 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-2), State Bank Of India, Page 3 of 4 Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna -800 001 PURNENDU PRAKASH Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission