Central Information Commission
S Ramalingam vs State Bank Of India on 16 May, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/148829
S Ramalingam ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India
Hyderabad ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 25.09.2023 FA : 13.10.2023 SA : 22.12.2023
CPIO : 04.10.2023 FAO : 10.11.2023 Hearing : 14.05.2024
Date of Decision: 15.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) On 29/08/2023 you have displayed a board at single window counter stating that "USE ATM CARD BOTH WITHDRAWL AND DEPOSIT UPTO Rs. 40,000 ATM CARD HOLDERS SEPARATE QUEUE."
Under which provision of clause you have displayed the same furnish the same under R.T.I Act.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.10.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 3"We state that the Branch has not displayed, any board mentioning, "USE ATM CARD BOTH WITHDRAWL AND DEPOSIT UPTO Rs.40,000/- ATM CARD HOLDERS SEPARATE QUEUE" as alleged by you in your request dated 25/09/2023."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.10.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 10.11.2023 advised the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application in the light of photograph taken by the applicant.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.12.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Jagdishwar Prasad, Chief Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that wrong information has been furnished by the Respondent. He claimed that he has attached the photograph of the said poster pasted on the board in the Bank.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the aforesaid circular was pasted in the bank during the covid period and was later on removed. Currently, no such poster is displayed.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Respondent has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application. Therefore, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 15.05.2024 Page 2 of 3 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o General Manager (Network) State Bank of India Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad - 500095.
2. S Ramalingam Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)