CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/PB/C/2008/00216-SM dated 18.09.2007
Right to Information Act-2005- Under Section (19)
Dated 13.03.2009
Complainant : Shri Ram Niwas Yadav
Respondent : State Bank of India
The Complainant along with Shri Prakash Gupta, is present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Shri Anil Kumar Baheti, Manager (Law)
(ii) Shri Pradeep Kumar Modi, Chief Manager
(iii) Shri B.K. Saxena, Chief Manager
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had requested the CPIO in his letter dated 18 September 2007
for a number of information regarding sanction of educational loans. He had attached a
ten rupee note with his application towards the application fee and sent it by post which
obviously was not in order. The CPIO, in a belated reply dated 29 November 2007,
informed him that his application was not in conformity with the rules and guidelines for
seeking information and, therefore, no information could be provided to him. It is against
this that the Complainant has approached us for relief.
3. During the hearing, we heard the submissions of both the parties. The
Complainant made oral submissions and also annexed a statement in which he has
requested for imposition of a penalty of Rs 10,000 on the CPIO and payment of a
compensation of Rs. 2000 to the Complainant. The Respondent, in addition to the written
comments sent to us, also made oral submissions. The Respondent argued that the
original application for information was not valid as it was not accompanied with the
requisite application fee as per the rules framed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
He argued that since the Complainant had sent the fees in cash, the CPIO was right in not
taking cognizance of the application as a valid application. While there is merit in this
argument, no credible explanation was offered by the Respondent about the delayed
response on the part of the CPIO. It is to be noted that the request for information was
sent on 18 September 2007 while the CPIO responded on 29 November 2007, that is,
nearly a month after the expiry of the stipulated period of 30 days. This is an
unacceptable delay for which the CPIO must offer his explanation. We, therefore, direct
the CPIO to explain within 10 working days from the receipt of this order as to why
maximum penalty under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act be not
imposed on him for not responding to the Complainant within the stipulated period. As
far as the information sought is concerned, we would like to advise the Complainant that
he should, if he so desires, apply to the CPIO in the proper manner along with the
application fee as per the rules.
4. With the above directions, we dispose off this complaint.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and
payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar