Santosh M. Ingale vs State Bank Of India on 8 December, 2020

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Santosh M. Ingale vs State Bank Of India on 8 December, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.11.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 04.06.2018 and first appeal dated 20.07.2018:

(i) Provide certified copy of all applications received by the respondent bank from dated 01.03.2016 to 31.05.2018 by 'Mantha Police Station' in respect of account No. ********546 of MREGS Grampanchayat Malkini Page 1 of 4

(ii) Details of appropriate action taken on each application which the respondent bank had been received from 'Mantha Police Station' from dated 01.03.2016 to 31.05.2018.

(iii) Copies of all the letters by which replies were given by the bank.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.06.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Aurangabad, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.06.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.07.2018. The First Appellate Authority(FAA) disposed of first appeal vide its order dated 14.08.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 12.11.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 12.11.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO and the FAA was inappropriate. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.06.2018 denied the information under clause (h) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 14.08.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO and further claimed exemptions under section 8 (1) (e), (j)& (g) of the RTI Act.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Ms. Anna, Branch Manager and Shri Ankush Rathore, Dy. Manager, State Bank of India, Aurangabad attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought aforesaid information as to know whether the Police authority was investigating the matter properly and the bank had been providing the proper assistance in investigation. He stated that he was informed that bank officials did not cooperate with the police authority in investigation Page 2 of 4 in the aforesaid gram panchayat account. However, he contended that information sought was denied by the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought copies of correspondences made between the police and the bank in respect of the aforesaid gram panchayat account. They informed that since the matter was under

investigation, disclosure of which would harm of process of investigation, hence, it was denied to the appellant as per section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.

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 has sought copies of correspondence made between the police and the bank regarding account of MRPEG Gram Panchayat. The appellant during the course of hearing inter alia submitted that an FIR was also filed and after the investigation, charge sheet had also been filed in the Court of law. Thus, it is not a case for exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as claimed by the respondent. Besides, the respondent did not claim any other exemption. The Commission feels that larger public interest may be in favour of disclosure of information inter alia on the grounds of bringing transparency and accountability, exposing the malfeasance and the appellant being directly adversely affected by the irregularities. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide proper reply/information to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) िदनां क/Date: 08.12.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA Regional Business Office Jaina Aurangabad, Plot No. 79, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad - 431 003 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-V), State Bank Of India, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SYNERGY, PLOT NO.C-6, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400 051 Santosh M. Ingale Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission