Central Information Commission
K. Viswanathan vs State Bank Of India on 13 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2023/141597 +
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/143262
K Viswanathan ...िशकायतकता/Complainant /
... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Kochi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint/appeal:
Sl. Complaint / Date of Date of Date of First Date of Date of
No. Second RTI CPIO's Appeal FAA's Complaint
Appeal No. Application Reply Order / Second
Appeal
1. 141597 11.03.2023 20.04.2023 Not on Not on 05.10.2023
record record
2. 143262 11.03.2023 20.04.2023 26.04.2023 23.08.2023 21.10.2023
The instant set of appeal & Complaint have been clubbed for decision as these
relate to the same RTI application.
Date of Hearing: 03.01.2025
Date of Decision: 13.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Page 1 of 7 I am having an SB A/c No. 3077***612 with the SBI, NF Br., Tripunithura. A copy of the reply received by me from CPIO & RM, SBI, RBO2, Ernakulam is enclosed for ready reference. The information on the following queries may be given to me under the RTI Act 2005, within the stipulated time mentioned in the Act.
(i) It has stated that in the reply given to the consumer Court (CDRC) by the chief Manager that I have been included in the PMSBY scheme. Hence, a copy of my consent for inclusion in the scheme may be given.
(ii) Customers opting for the PMSBY from NF TPA Branch has been given as 3349, 3029, 2923 and 2851. Please furnish the year in which the number has been given.
(iii) Out of the above numbers furnished, furnish the number of customers who have not given their written consent to the PMSBY scheme and who have given (the number of customers) their written consent to the PMSBY scheme, for each year.
(iv) Please furnish the Designation and address of Appeal Authorities (1st, 2nd, and final) for filing Appeals, if necessary for me to proceed further.
(v) What are the actions taken by the Chief Manager, SBI, NF Branch after I submitted my life Certificate manually on 2/2/2017 as per the advise given by the chief Manager to get the Monthly Pension for Jan. 2017, as I did not get my pension for Jan 2017 even though digital Govt. has been given by me on 2nd Nov. 2016 at the Branch. This refers to the reply dt. 12th Jan 2023 filed before the CDRC, Ernakulam in Case No. 572/22 as the Chief Manager has promised to take action to get the pension for Jan 2017 at the earliest.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) The information is not available on records.
Page 2 of 7
(ii) The no of customers opting for PMSBY scheme from North Fort Thripunithura
branch as given to you pertains to the financial years 2017-18,2018-19,2019- 20,2020-21 respectively.
(iii) The public authority is not having obligation to collect or collate any information as required by the RTI applicant. Such collection or compilation of such details would disproportionately divert the resources of the Bank. So this is not an information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act and also under section 7(9) of the Act; the information could not be provided.
(iv) First Appellate authority: The General Manager Network-III, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram-695012 Second & Final Appellate authority: Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg. Munirka, New Delhi-110067
(v) The action taken details regarding your grievance on pension is not an information under section 2(f) of RTI Act. However, I provide you the information that your pension for Jan 2017 was credited on 02.03.2017.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 05.10.2023.
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.10.2023.
6. The complainant/appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Neema C, Chief Manager (Law), attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 3 of 77. The respondent reiterated the written submission and the same is reproduced as under:-
"It is humbly submitted that RTI application dt 11/03/2023 by Sri K Viswanathan was seeking information under queries 1 to 5, which were answered by the then concerned CPIO of Bank vide his reply no. RBO- 2/ERN/26/16/123 dt 20/04/2023. Against query no. 1,3 & 5 he has filed appeal dated nil before the First Appellate Authority, General Manager NW III of SBI LHO Poojapura Trivandrum. The said appeal was considered and disposed by the First Appellate Authority concurring with the reply given by CPIO, by order no. 08/2023-24 dt 23/08/2023. Presently the appellant has filed this Complaint dated 05/10/2023 before this Hon'ble Commission requesting for stringent action against the Asst CPIO and the CPIO of North Fort Tripunithura Branch of SBI at Ernakulam for non-compliance of provisions of the RTI Act.
The complaint and corresponding reply from our side is as under.
(a) The Asst CPIO did not provide reply to me at all. As per the Board displayed the Chief Manager Sri Suresh is designated as ACPIO. The reply to my RTI which can be provided by him and should not have forwarded to CPIO Ernakulam.
Ans- Section 5 (2) of the RTI Act, interalia states that every public authority shall designate an officer, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub-divisional level or other subdistrict level as a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to receive the applications for information or appeals under this Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer.
Page 4 of 7So the act of Chief Manager, North Fort Tripunithura Branch having forwarded the application to CPIO is correct and he is not empowered to answer any query under RTI Act.
(b) I received a reply dt. 20/04/23 on 26/04/23 (sent by Regd. A/D) from a CPIO & RM, RBO-2, Ernakulam, in which the CPIO has mentioned that the appln. Dt. 11/03/23 has been received by CPIO on 23/03/2023 only whereas the Asst. CPIO received the letter on 16/03/23. I think my appln has been forwarded to the CPIO, RM, Ernakulam. The Asst. CPIO did not provide a copy of the letter forwarding my appln to the CPIO at Ernakulam as it is mandatory as per rule provided under the Act, which attracts penal provisions of the Act. Thus a scant regard is shown to my RTI application which seems to be a serious one.
Ans-The application received under the RTI Act by the Asst CPIO is mandatorily to be forwarded to CPIO and it is incorrect to state that the applicant need to be notified for the same especially when the complainant herein himself admits that CPIO as per the display board shown at the Branch is the Regional Manager, RBO-2 Ernakulam.
(c) Therefore, the date of receipt of appln may be taken as 16/3/2023 and 30 days ends on 14/4/23 and the date of reply is only 20/4/23 thereby a delay of 6 days.
Ans- The proviso to section 5 (2) of the RTI Act states that "Provided that where an application for information or appeal is given to a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, a period of five days shall be added in computing the period for response specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7.
Page 5 of 7Section 7 of the RTI Act speaks about Disposal of request (1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9.
So, the action of CPIO by disposing the RTI request on 20.04.2023, which was received of 16.03.2023, is within overall period of 35 days as prescribed under the Act.
He has earlier also filed numerous RTI request and Consumer court case also for his grievance. It may please be noted that the RTI request is regarding the social security scheme introduced by Govt of India and Bank has no direct role in it except to implement the scheme. Annual premium of Rs. 12/- was deducted under PMSBY (PM Suraksha Bhima yojana) which is an accident insurance scheme for persons in the age group of 18 to 70 having SB account. The complainant who is stated to be a retd EPFO official who has served in Central Govt service, is unnecessarily trying to drag Bank's officials to litigation and in turn an abuse of the system.
The above submissions may be accepted and this Hon'ble Commission may dismiss the complaint with costs to the Public Authority."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 20.04.2023. Further, in the absence of the complainant/appellant or any additional Page 6 of 7 objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. That being so and the reply having been given to the complainant/appellant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint/appeal. Accordingly, the complaint/Appeal is closed/dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 13.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO State Bank of India, CPIO, Regional Business Office-2, Ernakulam, Administrative Office, 8th Floor, Shanmugham Road, Ernakulam, Kochi, Kerala-682031
2. K Viswanathan Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)