Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Amit Sharma vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur on 22 July, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri Amit Sharma vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur on 22 July, 2009
                     Central Information Commission
         Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00839-SM dated 28.08.2006
            Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)


                                                      Dated:     22 July 2009

Name of the Complainant          :   Shri Amit Sharma,
                                     S/o Shri S.P. Sharma,
                                     17-A, Block 1, Platinum Enclave,
                                     Sector 18, Rohini,
                                     New Delhi - 110 060.

Name of the Public Authority     :   CPIO, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
                                     Jaipur Region II, Zonal Office,
                                     Shanker Road, New Rajender Nagar,
                                     New Delhi - 110 060.


       The Complainant was not present.

       On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Vinod Chopra, Dy. Manager, was

present.

2. The case in brief is that the Appellant had, in his application dated 28

August 2006, requested the CPIO for a number of information regarding the

loans sanctioned by one KL Gupta, Branch Manager. The CPIO replied on 14

May 2007 and provided point wise information on some of the queries while

denied some others as exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to

Information (RTI) Act. In the meanwhile, he had sent an appeal to the first

Appellate Authority on 10 March 2007 complaining that the CPIO had not

provided the information within the stipulated period. It appears that the

May 14, 2007 reply of the CPIO was also not received by him and he has filed

a second appeal to the CIC.

3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present. The Respondent

was present. He could not explain why the Appellant was not informed

CIC/PB/C/2008/00839-SM
within the stipulated period and why the information was provided nearly 8

months later. Undoubtedly, there has been considerable delay on the part

of the CPIO in providing the information for which he has rendered himself

liable for imposition of the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 as per Section 20

of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, before imposing such

penalty, we would like him to explain in writing the reasons for the delay. If

we do not receive his satisfactory explanation within 15 working days from

the receipt of this order, we will assume that he has nothing more to say

and proceed to impose this penalty.

4. Besides, we also direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10

working days from the receipt of this order the remaining information

sought which he had earlier denied as exempt. The action taken on any

complaint against a public official as in this case cannot be termed as

personal information and denied.

5. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.

6. 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

CIC/PB/C/2008/00839-SM