CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2797/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/08/407
September 11, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
[Hearing on 19.8.2008 at 5.00 p.m.]
Appellant: Mr. Vijay Kamble, Mumbaik
Public authority: State Bank of India
The GM & CPIO
The CGM & First AA
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. T.R.N.Sharma, AGM
Mr. Lakshmy G.S.Iyer, Dy. Manager
For Appellant:
None.
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated 30.9.2007
addressed to CPIO, State Bank of India, Local Head office, Mumbai information in
respect of Letters of Credit established by 5 Russian companies during the period from
1.4.1997 to 31.7.2000. He has also furnished a list of 63 beneficiaries and requested
detailed information under 22 heads for each of these beneficiaries and also requested
for photocopies of all documents under these 22 heads. The CPIO furnished his reply
vide letter dated 8.10.2007 by which he informed the appellant that his application was
rejected under section 7(9) and section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. Aggrieved with the said
decision, the appellant preferred his appeal before the first AA on 29.10.2007. The First
AA disposed of this appeal vide letter dated 5.2.2008 by giving a speaking order. And
he has also reiterated that this information cannot be given under section 7(9) and
section 8(1)(e) of the Act. While giving decision he has indicated the information sought
by the appellant is voluminous and definitely would disproportionately divert the
resources of the Bank. It was also indicated by the AA in his decision the appellant has
not asked for specific information and it is also not precise and the appellant has also
used various terminology like ‘according to my knowledge, the said information is
available with State Bank of India” etc. It gives the impression the appellant has not
been specific and he is asking for large scale information and he is expecting the Bank
to go through the records and collect information and provide it to him. After receipt of
the AA’s decision, the appellant is still aggrieved and filed this appeal before the
Commission on 23.02.2008. Comments were called for vide letter dated 12.5.2008,
which was received from CPIO on 12.01.2008.
DECISION:
2. This case came up for hearing on 19.8.2008, which was attended by the AGM
and Deputy Manager from SBI HQ. The appellant did not attend the hearing. I have
gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this connection. At the
first instance I would like to reiterate the CPIO has not provided any speaking order
1
while giving reply to his RTI application. He has simply stated this information cannot
be given under section 7(9) of RTI Act and under section 8(1)(e) of the Act. He should
have explained clearly how this would disproportionately divert the resources of the
Bank so as to convince the appellant how he cannot get reply. However, the AA has
given a speaking order while disposing of this appeal. I totally agree with the stand
taken by the AA while refusing to provide information under section 7(9) and under
section 8(1)(e) of the Act. The appellant is requesting information pertaining to five
firms and he has also given the particulars of 65 beneficiaries and he is requesting
under various heads and he has requested the Bank to provide photocopies of all these
transactions. This would be a Herculean task for the Bank to collect various information
from various records and provide it to the appellant. The appellant also not established
any public interest in seeking this information. However, the appellant has stated
somewhere that this matter has already been taken up by various authorities like RBI,
CBI, Enforcement Directorate for certain enquiry. In case if he has got some matter to
be collected from these bodies, since they are also public authorities under RTI Act, he
is free to approach those authorities in respect of irregularities committed by these
firms.
3. As far as this application is concerned, the appellant cannot seek information in
respect of so many firm and so many beneficiaries that too for a period of four years
under various heads. In case if he is very much concerned with certain transaction and
if he feels some irregularity has taken place between importer and exporter which has
been facilitated by the Bank he is expected to provide specific details in respect of
Letter of Credit in respect of specific party for a particular year. If the appellant
furnishes specific details the CPIO is directed to go through such application under the
provisions of the RTI Act and provide the concerned files for the inspection of the
appellant on a mutually convenient date and time. After carrying out the above exercise
if the appellant feels still aggrieved he can approach the Commission thereafter. On
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. The GM & CPIO, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, ‘Synergy’ Plot No.C-6, ‘G’
Block, Bandra-Kurla Compelx, P.B. No. 8123, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051.
2. The Chief General Manager & First AA, State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
‘Synergy’ Plot No.C-6, ‘G’ Block, Bandra-Kurla Compelx, P.B. No. 8123, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400051.
3. Mr. Vijay Kamble, 3/141, M.H.B. Colony, Kher Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai –
400051.
2