CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2764/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/2008/123
August 22, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
[Hearing at Hyderabad on 13.8.2008 at 11.00 a.m.]
Appellant: Mr. M.R. Ganesh Kumar, Hyderabad
Public authority: State Bank of India
Mr. Rajeev K.Seth, GM & CPIO
CGM & First AA
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. Rajeev K.Seth, GM & CPIO
Mr. Ganapathi Malve, AGM (Law) for AA
For Appellant:
None.
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his application
dated 22.8.2007 addressed to Branch Manager & PIO, State Bank of India,
Isamia Bazar Branch, Hyderabad regarding various particulars in connection with
some mistake/error happened in some loan account. He has enclosed copies of
two letters in this connection. Having not received any reply the appellant
preferred his appeal before the GM, LHO, Hyderabad on 19.10.2007. In
response to this the GM & CPIO had given a detailed reply vide letter dated
19.11.2007. He has also provided the particulars of the designated first appellate
authority. Not satisfied, the appellant preferred this appeal before the
Commission on 19.12.2007. Comments were called from the public authority
and has been furnished vide letter dated 2.4.2008.
DECISION:
2. This case came up for hearing on 13.8.2008, which was attended by the
CPIO in person accompanied by AGM (Law). The appellant did not attend the
hearing. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in
this connection. During the hearing, the GM & CPIO has explained the issues
involved in the matter. He stated that the error in posting of interest in the
appellant’s gold loan account had occurred at the time of migration of accounts to
Core Banking Solutions and he has also explained the replies given in respect of
other queries. It is true the appellant has not framed his questions so as to
1
qualify under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, still the CPIO has given reply to the
extent possible. However, it was pointed out that there was lot of delay from the
date of the first RTI application. For this the CPIO explained that the appellant
has initially approached the Branch Manager thinking that he is the CPIO and as
he was not getting any reply he approached the CPIO on appeal. However the
Bank considered this appeal as RTI application and started answering the same
on 19.11.2007. This attitude of the Branch Manager is not acceptable to the
Commission. As a prudent officer of the Bank, he should have forwarded the
RTI application to the concerned authority within the specified period. Hence, the
concerned Branch Manager who has initially received the RTI application has to
show-cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him under section 20
(1) of the RTI Act for not taking action on the RTI application. The CPIO has
been directed to obtain the explanation of the Branch Manager and send it to the
Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this decision. Apart from
this the CPIO has been directed to give some more clarification to the appellant
on the queries raised by him. In case if the appellant is still apprehensive of
anything, he can fix up an appointment with the CPIO and inspect the concerned
records. In these 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. Mr. Rajeev K. Seth, GM & CPIO, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank
Street, Koti, Hyderabad – 500095.
2. The CGM & First AA, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street,
Koti, Hyderabad – 500095.
3. Mr. M.R. Ganesh Kumar, 16-11-578, Beside Church, Gaddiannaram,
Hyderabad – 500060.
2