Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00712-SM dated 30.07.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 25.02.2009
Appellant : Shri Ravi Gopal Upadhyay
Respondent : State Bank of India
The Appellant is present.
On behalf of the Respondent the following are present::-
(i) Shri Anil Khanna, Deputy Manager
(ii) Ms. Sougata Mitra, Deputy Manager (Law)
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO, in his letter dated 30 July 2007, for a
number of information regarding the deduction of tax at source from his Senior Citizen
Savings Account. In response, the CPIO in his letter dated 6 Oct 2007, that is much
beyond the stipulated period, provided all the information point wise. Not satisfied with
the information, the Appellant filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 7
November 2007. The first Appellate Authority decided his appeal in his order dated 20
December 2007 and held that the CPIO had already provided all the available
information and there was nothing more to be given. He also directed that if the
information had not been provided within the stipulated period, the fee deposited by the
Appellant should be refunded to him. It is against this order of the Appellate Authority
that the Appellant has approached the Commission in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant argued that the CPIO had provided him with
not only inadequate but also misleading information. The Respondent, however,
submitted that all the information provided was as per the available records and there was
nothing misleading about those. After carefully examining all the records and documents
enclosed with the appeal, we note that the real issue in this case is the Appellant’s serious
objection to the TDS deduction made from his principal deposit amount. Though the
deducted amount was restored soon thereafter, the Appellant finds the conduct of the
Bank extremely unsatisfactory and objectionable. We find that the Bank had already
admitted its error and had rectified it by restoring the deducted amount along with the
interests for this period soon after the deduction was made. The remaining information
which the Bank had supplied in response to the Appellant’s request, seems to be
adequate. The Appellant did not produce any evidence to disprove the contents of the
information provided by the CPIO in response to his request. Since the CPIO has already
provided the information, though belatedly, and since the Bank has already admitted its
error in wrongfully deducting the TDS, we do not think there is anything more by way of
information to be provided to the Appellant.
4. However, before we dispose of this appeal, we would like to see the explanation
of the CPIO for the inordinate delay in replying to the Appellant and providing him with
the information. The Right to Information (RTI) Act puts a strict time limit for the supply
of information. In this case, since the Appellant had requested for information on 30 July
2007, the CPIO should have provided the information before 30 August 2007. However,
he provided the information only on 6 October 2007, that is, nearly 6 weeks later. We
direct the CPIO to explain within 10 working days from the receipt of this order why a
penalty of Rs 25000 be not imposed on him for this delay as per the provisions of Section
20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. If we do not receive his explanation in time, we
will decide on the penalty ex parte.
5. With the above direction, we dispose off the appeal.
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