CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001613AT
Dated, the 10 September, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri P.I. Oza
Respondent : State Bank of India, Mumbai
s
This matter came up for hearing on 08.09.2010 pursuant to
Commission’s notice dated 27.07.2010. Appellant was absent, while the
respondents were represented by Shri J. Venugopal, AGM (Law) and
Shri M.K. Dubey, AGM (RTI).
2. Appellant, through his RTIapplication dated 04.05.2009, requested
the following items of information:
“1. Please furnish details of investments of corpus fund of
Rs.17.04 crores of SBS REMBS Scheme as on 13.08.08,
31.03.09 & 30.04.09, i.e. details such as Name of Securities,
where invested, date of investments of yield thereof.
2. Please furnish details of investment of Rs.72/ crores of P.F.
surplus Account of SBS as on 13.08.08, 31.03.09 and
30.04.09. Details such as name of securities, date of
investments where invested, yield thereof, etc.”
3. CPIO, through a communication dated 02.06.2009, declined to
disclose this information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI
Act. Appellate Authority’s order dated 25.06.2009 upheld CPIO’s
decision.
CIC_SM_A_2009_001613_M_42132.doc
Page 1 of 3
4. Appellant, who has now challenged that order in secondappeal,
has stated that he was an employee of the former State Bank of
Saurashtra, which has now been merged with the State Bank of India
(SBI). He was a beneficiary of the SBS REMBS Scheme, which was a
medical benefit scheme for retired employees of the Bank, which is now
being managed by SBI. He had sought the information on the
investments made under the Scheme.
5. Appellant had stated that he was also a member of the SBS
Provident Fund and was entitled to know as to how the fund was being
managed.
6. I notice that the respondents have routinely decided not to disclose
the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act ― treating it as a
matter of their own commercial confidence ― without factoring in the
decisionmaking the appellant’s own status as a contributor to the above
mentioned funds. In my view, he is entitled to receive clear and direct
replies to his queries, which has been wrongly denied by quoting the
exemption Section 8(1)(d). A contributor to a fund has the right to know
whether the managers are investing the funds to optimize the benefit to
the contributors. It is odd that rather than acknowledge the contributor’s
right to be apprised of the investment pattern of the funds collected from
him and similar others, the Bank considers it its right not to share any
information about the manner of the investment of these funds. It is
surprising that they have not yet setup any system of communicating the
investment details with those who had a direct interest in the
management of the funds, i.e. the contributors.
7. This matter needs to be carefully examined in the light of the
observations above and the instructions of the Bank and the market
regulators about transparency in these investments.
8. I would expect serious reflection by the senior officers of the State
Bank of India so that a wellinformed position emerges about
CIC_SM_A_2009_001613_M_42132.doc
Page 2 of 3
transparency in these investments and transmission of the relevant
information to investors.
9. Matter is accordingly remitted back to the Appellate Authority and
Chief General Manager (Banking Operations), Mumbai with the direction
that he will examine this matter denovo after giving an opportunity to the
appellant to be heard in person and make a decision within four weeks.
10. Matter is accordingly disposed of.
11. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CIC_SM_A_2009_001613_M_42132.doc
Page 3 of 3