Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rajasekaran M vs Syndicate Bank on 26 December, 2018

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SYNDB/A/2017/163791


Rajasekaran M                                               ... अपीलकता/Appellant


                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम


CPIO, Syndicate Bank,                                  ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Salem.

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 08-06-2017            FA     : 10-07-2017          SA     : 12-09-2017

CPIO : 03-07-2017           FAO : 09-08-2017             Hearing: 21-12-2018


                                    ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Paramathi Velur Branch seeking information on seven points pertaining to the educational loan applications and the demonetized notes received at the P Velur branch of the Syndicate Bank, including, inter-alia, (i) the name and designation of the staff members serving in the P Velur Branch, (ii) the residential addresses where the staff members of the Bank have been residing along with proof to this Page 1 of 4 effect, (iii) the number of applications received for educational loan, cases sanctioned with loan, the number of cases rejected, the reasons for rejection and proof that rejection had been communicated to them, quantum of loan sanctioned, the name and addresses of the beneficiaries to whom loans were sanctioned in the past three years, and (iv) after the demonetization of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes, the number of notes of above denominations deposited with the Bank by the public from 8th November to 30th December 2016, their names and addresses, and details of the individual deposits.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that complete information has not been provided by the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought and to take necessary legal action against the CPIO for not providing complete information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Rajasekaran attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent, Mr. P. Raj Kumar, Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Salem attended the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The appellant submitted that he is satisfied with information given by the CPIO, except the reply given on point no. 7 of his RTI application. Further, he stated that the respondent should provide him specific information on point number 7 pertaining to the quantum of expenditure incurred by the Bank and the corresponding bills and vouchers.

5. The respondent submitted that they can provide statistical information pertaining to the quantum of expenditure incurred by the Bank but information relating to bills and vouchers is voluminous in nature and is not readily available with the CPIO in the manner as sought by the appellant, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, they have claimed exemption from disclosure as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent should provide statistical information to the appellant on the quantum of expenditure incurred by the Bank. The Commission agrees with the respondent that information on the bills and vouchers is voluminous in nature and furnishing the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide statistical information on point no. 7 in response to the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sudhir Bhargava (सुसुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 24.12.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Plot No- 15/20, first Floor, Indira Gandhi Road, Fairlands, Salem- 636016.

2. Rajasekaran M, Page 4 of 4