CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000580
Dated, the 26 October, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri K. Thakshinamurthy
Respondent : State Bank of India, Chennai
s
This matter came up for hearing on 11.10.2010 pursuant to
Commission’s notice dated 20.09.2010. Appellant was absent when
called, while the respondents were represented by Shri S.V. Sankaran,
Law Officer and Shri D. Kasi, Manager.
2. Respondents stated that the appellant herein is presently
undergoing his sentence in Madurai Central Jail, having been convicted
by the CBI Court. He has been filing a series of RTIapplications
pertaining to the time when he was in service of SBI and financial
irregularities and mismanagement were noticed against him.
3. Appellant’s RTIapplication dated 16.02.2010 related to information
about the specifics of the competent authority who authorized delegation
of financial powers mentioned in a circular number ORG.4/9596 dated
03.11.1995 issued by the State Bank of India and under what regulation
the competent authority was created.
4. Curiously, the reply of the CPIO, dated 17.03.2010, as endorsed
through the decision dated 16.04.2010 by Appellate Authority, mentioned
that as the appellant was involved in serious financial irregularities, he
was not entitled to receive the requested information.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000580_M_44838.doc
Page 1 of 2
5. This reasoning of both these responsible officers is entirely
erroneous and shows a predisposition towards not disclosing information
under some pretext or the other. RTI does not authorize withholding of
an information on the ground that the person seeking it was involved in
serious financial irregularities. In order to withhold from disclosure any
information, the relevant exemptionSections need to be cited ― an
elementary exercise which CPIO and Appellate Authority have failed to
perform.
6. Both these officers, viz. the CPIO & RM, RBOI, Madurai and
Appellate Authority and General Manager (NW2), LHO, Chennai are
warned that, as statutory functionaries under the RTI Act, it is their duty to
be vigilant about replying to RTIapplications no matter who it comes
from. Both seem to have been extremely negligent in the performance of
their statutory responsibilities.
7. As the reason cited by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority is
entirely untenable, it is directed that the requested information shall be
provided to the appellant within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
8. Matter disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CIC_AT_A_2010_000580_M_44838.doc 2
Page of 2