Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001072 dated 11112008
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 20 May 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Muzibur Rahman
Qtr. No. NCH B/12, PO SECL,
Gevra Project, Distt - Korba,
Chattisgarh.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
PB.No. 6, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal - 462 011.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Smt. Nirmala Ukrani was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 11 November
2008, requested the CPIO for various documents and information relating to an
official of the respondent bank including that official’s pay slips, travel expenses
and rent receipts. In his reply dated 24 January 2009, the CPIO refused all the
requests on the ground that the information sought by the Appellant related to a
matter of commercial confidence and third party information, which was
exempted from disclosure under the Sections 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. The response of the CPIO came much after the
prescribed time limit (as mentioned in the RTI Act) and in the meanwhile the
Appellant had already preferred an appeal on 24 December 2008. It is not clear
if the Appellate authority had passed any order on the appeal. The Appellant
however has preferred a second appeal in the CIC.
CIC/SM/A/2009/001072
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Korba studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in the
Bhopal studio. We heard their submissions. We do not agree with the
contention of the CPIO that the desired information could be denied as personal
information. Such information as the monthly salary paid to the branch
manager, his official travel expenses etc, is of a routine administrative nature
and has to be placed in the public domain. In fact, some of this information
should be available through the Section 4(1) (b) disclosure to be made by the
bank itself. In view of this, we now direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant
all the desired information along with photocopies of any relevant
documents/records within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.
4. In this case, there is an obvious delay on the part of the CPIO in
providing the information to the Appellant. It is claimed that the CPIO received
the request for information only on 6 January 2009 although the Appellant had
preferred it in the branch on 11 November 2008. Obviously, the branch had
forwarded it late. In any case, this entire delay has to be explained reasonably.
Therefore, we direct the CPIO to appear before us in person on 2 July 2010 at
11.15 AM or depute the branch manager concerned to explain the delay in the
matter. It may be noted that if the delay is not explained with adequate
justification, penalty in terms of Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information (RTI)
Act will be imposed on the CPIO or any other officer responsible for the delay.
5. With the above directions, the appeals is disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SM/A/2009/001072
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
CIC/SM/A/2009/001072