Central Information Commission
Major Santosh Singh vs State Bank Of India on 2 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BBBUR/A/2021/662600/SBIND
Major Santosh Singh ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
State Bank of India, RTI Cell,
DAO Building, 11 Sansad Marg,
Retail Assets Central Processing
Centre, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29/05/2023
Date of Decision : 29/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 03/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 12/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 26/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2021 seeking the following information:
"1. I am existing Home Loan Customer of SBI. My Home Loan Account No- 37168293650 is being maintained by SBI RACPC Central, New Delhi (Branch Code-1
04492). My Property Documents are also held with SBI RACPC Central, New Delhi (Branch Code- 04492).
2. PIO, SBI Office Administrative Department (OAD), LHO, New Delhi (Branch Code- 03973) is requested to provide me following information under RTI Act 2005 :
(a) How many complaints have been registered/lodged by SBI customers during pandemic era in SBI RACPC Central (Branch Code- 04492) since April 2020 to till date.?
(b) How many complaints sorted out of lodged/registered complaints.?"
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 03.11.2021 stating as under:
"(a)This information is denied under RTI Act Section 8(1)(j).
(b) This information is denied under RTI Act Section 8(1)(j), all ethical complaints have been resolved within time."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.11.2021. FAA's order dated 26.11.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Suryajeet Singh and Shri Gautam Kumar present through Intra Video-Conference.
The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and submitted that ab-initio vide their letter dated 03.11.2021, they have denied disclosure of information to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, after the directions given by the FAA, on 24.12.2021, they provided a revised reply to the Appellant giving the factual position in the matter.2
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-receipt of desired information. In response to which, the CPIO clarified the factual position as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The Respondent categorically informed the Commission that after the directions given by the FAA, on 24.12.2021, information was provided to the Appellant.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further. Nonetheless, the Commission directs the Respondent to again send a copy of their reply dated 24.12.2021 to the Appellant immediately after the hearing is over.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3