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 the complete bank statement of MREGS GRAMPANCHAYAT MALKINI (A/c No. ********546) from dated 01.05.2015 to 31.12.2015.

(ii) If amount withdrawals medium in the aforesaid account were cheques then, all certified copies of cheques with front and back photocopy of each and every cheque may be given with the statement of transactions.

Page 1 of 4

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, 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 09.08.2018. 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 was not satisfactory. 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 clauses (d) & (e) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 09.08.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

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 information sought was related to an account of Panchayat and his father was one of the beneficiaries of the account. He further submitted that some persons in connivance of the bank officials had misused the Government fund and an FIR had been filed in this regard. He informed that investigation was over and charge sheet had been filed before the court. He contended that public money was defrauded, hence, exemption claimed by the respondent was not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly requested to disclose the information in larger public interest.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought related to their commercial confidence and held by the bank in fiduciary Page 2 of 4 capacity. Hence, it was denied under section 8 (1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act. They further stated that the appellant had filed an FIR in respect of the account in question about which the information was sought and disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation hence it was also exempted under 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 had sought the account statement of MRPEG Gram Panchyat. The appellant during the course of hearing inter alia submitted that an FIR was also filed and after the investigation, charge sheet has 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 during the course of hearing. 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 the 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