Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rajendra Shah vs State Bank Of India on 30 May, 2025

                                     के ीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/612645

ADINATH TRADERS                                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant
(PROP. BABULAL
KASTURCHAND SHAH
HUF

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Gandhinagar                                                  ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 20.12.2023                FA       : 09.02.2024             SA     : Nil.

CPIO : 16.01.2024               FAO : 07.03.2024                  Hearing : 22.05.2025


Date of Decision: 30.05.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 "You are requested to furnish the following information/documents in respect of my application for transfer of current A/C from Idar (00385) to Vasai (60384) vide application dated 10th Aug 2023:-

1. A) What is the normal time as prescribed by the bank as per your citizen charter "customer right policy"? B) Please provide the copy thereof i.e. point 1A supra.

2. Please provide the copy of action/documents taken by the in charged officers involved in transfer of my current bank A/C with SBI Idar Branch?

3. Reason for delay from 11th Aug 2023 to 20-12-2023?

4. Please provide a copy of action taken by your bank?"

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. "Sought information can be found at the below mentioned link of our bank's website www.sbi.co.in

2. The process of account transfer was taken up by Service Manager of Idar Branch but due to mismatch of data, system did not allow the transfer of account hence the matter was escalated to technical team (Service Desk). This is an internal process of online support by Technical team hence no written documentation needed.

3. The process of account transfer was taken up by Service Manager of Idar Branch but due to mismatch of data, system did not allow the transfer of account hence the matter was escalated to technical team (Service Desk). This is an internal process of online support by Technical team hence no written documentation needed.

4. With the help of technical support team Ac has been transferred as per customer request."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 07.03.2024 held as under:

"However, in the First Appeal, the appellant has expressed his inability to search the information on the public domain. Accordingly, the undersigned concurs with the order of the CPIO for the point number 2 to 4 and for the point number 1, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the information sought under the said point within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with the provision of the RTI Act, 2005."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The Appellant was sought to be represented by Rajendra Shah and on behalf of the Respondent, Neeraj Joshi, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Commission at the outset informed the parties that the instant appeal is an erroneous registration as the Second Appeal as the RTI Application under reference, and Second Appeal have been filed in the name of an entity i.e. ADINATH TRADERS (PROP. BABULAL KASTURCHAND SHAH HUF and Rajendra Shah has introduced himself as the Karta of the HUF in the First Appeal and only signed the First Appeal in his name, wherefrom the Central Registry of CIC appear to have gathered the name of the individual.

The parties were informed that Section 3 of the RTI Act confers the Right to Information to a "citizen" and not to a body corporate, therefore, the instant RTI Application not being filed as per Section 3 of the RTI Act and the second appeal also being filed in the name of HUF warrants to be dismissed as not maintainable.

7. The Appellant represented by Rajendra Shah contended that he is the Karta of the HUF and therefore is entitled to ask for the information.

8. The Commission in furtherance of the hearing proceedings, finds no scope of action in the matter. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 30.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO State Bank Of India, CPIO, Regional Business Office-2, Gandhinagar Administrative Office, 4th Floor, Opp. New Sachivalaya, Sector - 10b, Gandhinagar - 382010 2 Rajendra Shah Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)