Central Information Commission
Harinder Dhingra vs State Bank Of India on 31 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/121271
Harinder Dhingra ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Regional Business Office, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Region-II, Gurgaon.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28.04.2016 FA : 22.09.2016 SA : 14.03.2017
CPIO : 02.06.2016 FAO : 04.03.2017 Hearing : 21.08.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Sector-44, Gurgaon seeking information on seven points pertaining to branches of Gurgaon Zone in Gurgaon City for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2016, including, inter-alia (i) name of Branch Head(s)/Manager(s) with the Page 1 of 5 date of taking over the reins of the branch and date of being relieved of the charge of Branch Head(s) and (ii) year-wise advances sanctioned, disbursed by the respective branch heads during this period.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO wrongly denied the information claiming exemption under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 stating that the information sought is not compiled/maintained in the ordinary course of business and collection/compilation thereof would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought by him and to penalize the CPIO under Section 20(1) & (2) of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. Shri Tarun Dhingra, representative of the appellant, was present in person. The respondent was not present despite notice.
4. The appellant submitted that information has been wrongly denied to him by stating that the information sought is voluminous in nature, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The appellant stated that he had in his RTI application stated that the names and addresses of the defaulters could be withheld. In view of this, the information sought should have been provided. Nonetheless, the appellant agreed to further narrow down his request to (i) the total number of NPA accounts and the Page 2 of 5 total amount of NPAs as on 31.03.2016, (ii) the total amount overdue (loans/advances sanction/disbursed) as on 31.03.2016 and (iii) the total number of One-Time Settlement (OTS) done during the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2016. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the aforesaid information to him.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the appellant and perusing the records, observes that vide point nos. 1 and 7 of the RTI application, Appellant has sought, inter-alia, certain details of Branch Head(s)/Manager(s) related to their postings and the staff sanctioned/allowed in the abovementioned branches and actual strength of the staff as on date. Further, the appellant, vide point nos. 2 to 6 of the RTI application has sought statistical information pertaining to (i) the total number of NPA accounts and the total amount of NPAs as on 31.03.2016, (ii) the total amount overdue (loans/advances sanction/disbursed) as on 31.03.2016 and (iii) the total number of One-Time Settlement (OTS) done during the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2016. The Commission observes that the above-said information cannot be said to be voluminous. Moreover, it should be available in the computerized database of the bank and hence, the information sought for can be easily culled out from the database. In this context, the Commission notes that in the case of Rakesh Saraf v. Director General of Systems and Data Management, CBEC, CIC/SS/A/2011/901105 dated 05.12.2011 it was held that:
Page 3 of 5"The Commission is also of the view that since the information exists and is held by the Respondent; therefore, selectively picking a portion of such information will not amount to creation of fresh information under the RTI Act."
6. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide a. the information sought vide point nos. 1 and 7 of the RTI application, b. (i) the total number of NPA accounts and the total amount of NPAs as on 31.03.2016, (ii) the total amount overdue (loans/advances sanction/disbursed) as on 31.03.2016 and (iii) the total number of One-Time Settlement (OTS) done during the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2016 to the appellant free of cost within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. The Commission takes a serious view of the absence of the CPIO despite notice. The Commission directs the CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Region-II, Gurgaon to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining his absence, along with the comments of the First Appellate Authority, before 05.10.2018 both by post and through e-mail at [email protected].
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 59. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 30.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला( Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Region-II, Sector-44, C\GNG Tower, Gurgaon-12202.
2. The First Appellant Authority (FAA), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Region-II, Sector-44, C\GNG Tower, Gurgaon-12202.
3. Shri Harinder Dhingra, Page 5 of 5