Central Information Commission
N. Yadavan vs State Bank Of India on 27 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/139935
N. Yadavan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Chennai ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 11.06.2024 FA : 09.08.2024 SA : 09.12.2024
CPIO : 12.07.2024 FAO : 11.09.2024 Hearing : 12.12.2025
Date of Decision: 22.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) Your letter.RBO/CMOPS/ dt.09.10.2023.
2) Savings Bank A/c.No. 3810094****
3) Current Bank A/C.No.3813215**** ➢ With reference to above I request the following information and copies of documents under RTI Act-2005.
1) Date of opening of A/c under ref.1 is stated as 17.12.2018. But the date of very first transaction is 01.12.2018. So, the details of correct date of opening and source of a deposit of Rs.10000/- in the said account is required.Page 1 of 4
2) A cheque No. 298899 dt.26.11.2018 for Rs. 35,20,996.00 being Corpus Fund was issued by the Builder and deposited to SBI on 26.11.2018. But belatedly credited on 04.12.2018. Reason for delay in crediting the corpus fund, the date of deposit with the copy of covering letter of Builder be given.
3) As per Information provided, the copy of Byelaws of the association has been handed over to you on 17.12.2018. Specific Clause/Rules in the Byelaw that mandates the Bank to accept the documents ratified by the majority of the members and rules of SBI permitting the same.
4) Rule of the SBI that permitted to open said account on 01.12.2018 itself without the Byelaws of the association and allowing crediting of maintenance charges.
5) The Association itself was defunct from April 2019 as it was not renewed as per TN Societies Registration Act, 1975 vide the intimation enclosed. Rule of SBI that overrode the orders of Rules and regulations of the TN State and replaced the Office of the Registrar of Societies, Department of Registration, Tamil Nadu- State and allowed them to operate the Account.
Etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1) The correct date of opening of Savings Bank account is 01.12.2018 and the date of opening of Current account is 17.12.2018. The deposit of Rs. 10,000/- was made through IMPS to this account.
2) Eventhough, the cheque was drawn on 26.11.2018, actual deposit of the cheque was made on 03.12.2018 only. Copies of the Cheque and the Deposit slip are enclosed.
3) The query is more in the nature of opinion / clarification and not information under Sec 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4) The Registered copy of the Memorandum of Association dated 16.11.2018 was produced while opening the account with SBI, Paruthipattu branch on 01.12.2018.Page 2 of 4
5) The query is more in the nature of opinion / clarification and not information under Sec 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.12.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Prabhakar, RM, attended the hearing through Bharat VC.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had mostly sought clarification, which were not squarely covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, but they have provided a factual reply to the Appellant.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that appropriate response has been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act. Further, it is observed that the appellant has challenged the correctness of the information supplied by the CPIO in few of the points in the RTI application and the same cannot be dwelt upon. In that regard, the Commission would like to refer to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 06.12.2023 in Narendra Tyagi vs Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023] extracted as under:
"13. Consequently, it is clear that dispute as regards the correctness of information provided under the RTI Act, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the RTI Act. The CPIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. Whether or not such information as Page 3 of 4 provided by the CPIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings."
In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 22.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO State Bank of India, Regional Business Office-3, Ambattur (14754), Chennai North Zone No.-5 A, North Phase, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Chennai-600050
2. N. Yadavan Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)