Ajay Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 4 December, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ajay Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 4 December, 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:-

(i) कसान े िडट काड िजसका खाता नंबर 61089830343 है जो मेरे िपताजी लादूराम िसहाग पु अिमत चंद िसहाग िनवासी भोजला के नाम से है यह कतने 'े पर जारी कया गया है बताय( I

(ii) यह कसान े िडट काड कतनी िलिमट का बना )आ है I Page 1 of 7

(iii) इस कसान े िडट काड का ित वष कतना -याज बनता है एवं कतनी अनुदान रािश क( 0 सरकार ारा ा1 होती है I

(iv) धानमं ी फसल बीमा योजना 2016 के अंतग त 4या यह खाता नंबर आता है I

(v) इस कसान े िडट काड से खरीफ फसल एवं 2016 म( कतने 'े फल का बीमा कया गया वह कौन सी फसल का बीमा कया गया िव6तृत िडटेल देव( I

(vi) इस कसान े िडट काड से रबी 2016 म( कतने 'े फल का बीमा कया गया वह कौन सी फसल का कया गया I

(vii) इस कसान े िडट काड से खरीफ 2017 म( कतने 'े फल का बीमा कया गया वह कौन सी फसल का कया गया I

(viii) इस कसान े िडट काड से रिब 2017 म( कतने 'े फल का बीमा कया गया वह कौन सी फसल का कया गया I

(ix) इस कसान े िडट काड से खरीफ 2018 म( कतने 'े फल का बीमा कया गया वह कौन सी फसल का कया गया I

(x) इस कसान े िडट काड से रिब 2018 म( कतने 'े फल का बीमा कया गया वह कौन सी फसल का कया गया I

(xi) फरवरी 2018 तक कौन-कौन सी फसल का बीमा 4लेम वह कौन से वष का बकाया है I

(xii) धानमं ी फसल बीमा योजना के तहत अगर ऋणी कसान क9 फसल का बीमा नह: कया जाता है तो इसके िलए उ<रदाई कौन है I

(xiii) खरीफ फसल 2016 का बीमा 4लेम कस- कस फसल का हे4टेयर के िहसाब से कतना कराया है िव6तृत जानकारी देव( I

(xiv) आप क9 शाखा म( बीमा ीिमयम काटने का 4या पैमाना तय कर रखा है िजसम( कस आधार पर आप 'े फल व फसल को 6थान देते ह? I Page 2 of 7

(xv) 1 फरवरी 2018 तक आप क9 शाखा से कतने कसान े िडट काड जारी )ए ह? वह इस म( से कतने खरीफ फसल 2016 के िबना 4लेम से वंिचत रह गए इसका सं या@मक आंकड़ा देव( एवं इसके िलए उ<रदाई कौन है I (xvi) कसान े िडट काड म( एक िव<ीय वष म( एक इं 6पे4शन चाज व अBय के नाम पर कतनी बार कटौती क9 जाती है वह इसका कोई पैमाना तय कया गया है बताय( I

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.

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.

Page 3 of 7

Hearing on 21.05.2020 4.1. 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.

Interim order dated 26.05.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations/directions on 26.05.2020:

"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 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."

Page 4 of 7

Hearing on 29.10.2020

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

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted he was not satisfied with reply given by the respondent as the same was incomplete.

5.2. Shri Abhisekh Singh vide letter dated 31.08.2020 inter alia submitted that he had joined as a CPIO in Regional Business Office, Hanumangarh on 28.05.2019. He further submitted that the appellant in his RTI application as well as in the first appeal did not specify that his father was suffering from paralysis and he had sought information about KCC account of his father on his behalf. They informed that after receiving the interim order dated 26.05.2020 of the Commission, they provided point-wise information to the appellant vide letter dated 25.08.2020. Moreover, he expressed his sincere apology for the delay caused in furnishing the information to the appellant and requested the Commission to withdraw the show cause notice issued to him. 5.3. Shri Moti Singh Rajpurohit, the then CPIO, vide letter dated 07.09.2020 inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information regarding KCC account of his father and he had not informed that his father had been suffering from paralysis and information was sought on his behalf, hence, the desired information was denied under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that in compliance of the order of the Commission they had provided complete information to the appellant. He stated that there was no mala fide on his part while responding to the RTI application. Being public authority, he had to maintain the privacy of the customer as per the banking laws. He also tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant had requested for information relating to KCC loan of his father. It has now been brought forth that the appellant did not disclose the fact that he had sought information on behalf of his father who was suffering from paralysis. Besides, he had not submitted any authority Page 5 of 7 letter to the bank and in the absence of such, the information sought was denied to him. However, in compliance of the Commission's order dated 26.05.2020, the respondent have re-visited the RTI application and have furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide their letter dated 25.08.2020. The explanation submitted by the respondent in response to the show-cause notice appears to be reasonable and there was no mala fide on part of the respondent in responding to the RTI application. In view of the absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIOs, it would not be appropriate to take any action against them as per Section 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the show- cause notices against Mr. Abhisek Singh, the present CPIO and Mr. Moti Singh Rajpurohit, the then CPIO, State Bank of India, Administrative Office-III Bikaner, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 04.12.2020 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-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 Page 6 of 7 AJAY KUMAR Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission