Central Information Commission Judgements

Mohd. Nasim vs State Bank Of India on 29 July, 2008

Central Information Commission
Mohd. Nasim vs State Bank Of India on 29 July, 2008
          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
              B-Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

                                                                        Appeal No.2548/ICPB/2008
                                                                                F.No.PBA/08/0009
                                                                                     July 29, 2008
                In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
Appellant :            Mohd. Nasim

Public authority:      State Bank of India
                       GM & CPIO
                       CGM & Appellate Authority
FACTS

:

The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated 10.4.2007
addressed to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nagra Branch, Patna requesting
certain information as follows:

(a) He has requested whether one Md. Sahajahan posted at Chainpur Branch has
submitted any application seeking Bank’s permission to move to court against his
suspension;

(b) Provide a copy of the application and action taken by the Bank;

(c) Reasons for not taking any action on the application.

The concerned Branch Manager has not forwarded his application to the designated
CPIO, viz., General Manager, Network-I, Local Head Office, Patna with the result the
appellant has not received any reply from the CPIO. On account of this reason, the
appellant filed appeal on 23.05.2007 for which the AA has given his decision on
14.07.2007. While disposing of the appeal he has given specific direction to CPIO,
Network-I, to provide reply and he has also directed the CPIO to call for the explanation
of the Branch Manager of Nagra Branch for not forwarding the application to the
designated CPIO. Accordingly, the GM, NW-I cum CPIO provided reply vide letter
dated 18.7.2007 vide which he has provided copy of application submitted by one Md.
Sahajahan and he has also indicated no action has been taken in this application. This
information has been provided free of cost. Again aggrieved with the said decision, the
appellant filed this appeal before the Commission on 22.12.2007. The main prayer in the
second appeal is there was lot of inordinate delay in furnishing the information by GM,
NW-I cum CPIO. He has received some information from the CPIO only after he filed
appeal before the first AA. In his application he has requested the Commission to take
suitable action under RTI Act against the concerned.

2. Comments were called for vide letter dated 11.02.2008, which was received from
CGM-cum-first AA, LHO, Patna on 10.3.2008. The appellant has also submitted his
rejoinder. I have gone through the application as well a replies received in this
connection. At the outset it is indicated here the appellant is not entitled for any
information since he is requesting information pertaining to one Md. Sahajahan. This is a

1
third party information for which there is no obligation on the part of the CPIO to provide
any information. In spite of that on account of AA’s direction the CPIO has provided a
copy of the application made by one Md. Sahajahan to the Bank regarding his
transfer/suspension, though it is not expected under RTI Act to provide this third party
information. The appellant has asked for the reason for not taking any action is not
covered under RTI Act and no reason should be furnished by the CPIO as per the RTI
Act. To this extent the action taken by the CPIO is still within the norms. There was
delay in receiving reply from CPIO on account of the fact Branch Manager has not
forwarded the application dated 10.04.2007 which was addressed to PIO. I, therefore,
issue show-cause notice to the Branch Manager under section 20(1) of RTI Act since he
is the one who has received the RTI application and who has not forwarded the
application to the designated authority and he has to submit his explanation within 15
days. The designated CPIO should ensure that he forwards this explanation within 15
days to the Commission. As far as the appellant is concerned, he is not entitled for any
information. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal. On the above lines, the appeal is disposed
of.

Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.

Sd/-

(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :

(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar

Address of parties :

1. GM & CPIO, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, P.B.

No. 103, Patna-800001

2. CGM & Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West
Gandhi Maidan, P.B. No. 103, Patna-800001

3. Moh. Nasim, Village & PO. Tujarpur, Dist. Saran, Bihar-841442

2