Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri.Dayashanker Shukla vs State Bank Of India on 22 November, 2010

Central Information Commission
Shri.Dayashanker Shukla vs State Bank Of India on 22 November, 2010
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                          .....

F.No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000487­AT
Dated, the 22  November, 2010.

                                                                 nd




 Appellant         : Shri Dayashanker Shukla 


 Respondent        : State Bank of India, Bhopal
 s

This  matter  was  heard  on 16.11.2010  pursuant   to  Commission’s 
notice dated 27.10.2010.   Appellant was absent when called, while the 
respondents were represented by Shri N.Ukrani, Asst. General Manager 
and Shri G.P.Mahananda, Nodal Officer (RTI).

2. Appellant’s  RTI­application  dated 04.08.2009,  addressed  to SBI’s 
R.A.C.P.C., Raipur, was on the subject of the number of loans granted by 
the   Bank   to   loanees   between   01.05.2005   and   30.07.2009   on   their 
producing,   what   appellant   has   described   as,   certified   copies   of   the 
documents.

3. It   was   denied   by   the   CPIO   and   the   Appellate   Authority   on   the 
ground  that  such  an information  was  not  centrally  maintained  by  them 
and collecting and collating it from over 5000 files will be a drain on the 
public authority’s resources thereby attracting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.

4. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that this appellant 
himself   has   attempted   to   have   his   loan­application   processed   on   the 
basis of certified documents of the land to be mortgaged.  It was rejected 
by the Bank’s R.A.C.P.C. Office on the ground that the Bank needed the 
originals  of these  documents  to process  the  application  for sanction  of 

CIC_SM_A_2010_000487_M_46060.doc 
Page 1 of 2
loan.   The origin of appellant’s  above­mentioned  RTI­application lies in 
his pique on account of the above refusal.

5. I   find   no   infirmity   in   the   orders   of   the   CPIO   and   the   Appellate 
Authority, which are upheld.

6. Appeal fails.  Closed.

7. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties. 

( A.N. TIWARI )
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

CIC_SM_A_2010_000487_M_46060.doc 
Page 2 of 2