Shri.Popat Ananda Dange vs State Bank Of India on 28 September, 2010

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                            .....

F.No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000255­AT
Dated, the 28  September, 2010.

                                                                    th




 Appellant          : Shri P.A. Dange 


 Respondent         : State Bank of India, Mumbai
 s

This   matter   came   up   for   hearing   on   24.09.2010.     Appellant  
was   absent   when   called,   while   the   respondents   were   represented   by  
Shri M.V.Krishnamurthy, AGM and Ms.Lakshmy Iyer, Deputy Manager.

2. Appellant,   in   his   second­appeal   petition,   has   stated   that   he 
received   reply   from   the   CPIO   with   a   delay   of   37   days   relating   to   his 
RTI­application   dated   08.05.2009.     CPIO’s   reply   was   provided   on 
15.07.2009.  The Appellate Authority decided the matter in first­appeal on 
22.07.2009.

3. In regard to the point for disposal in this second­appeal, appellant 
has stated that the Bank made a wrong calculation about reconstruction 
and  rescheduling  of his  loan,  as  a result  of which,  he was  denied  the 
benefit of the debt waiver scheme of the central government.

4. It is  not  clear  from  the  appellant’s  second­appeal  as  to  how  the 
information so far provided to him was in any way deficient or unrelated to 
his queries.  I noticed that CPIO has furnished to the appellant point­wise 
information to all his queries.  In regard to his main query about whether 
the benefit of the waiver­scheme  applied  to him, he was  informed  that 
SBI Islampur  (Walva) Branch,  through  an order dated 30.06.2008,  had 
waived Rs.4968.29 from the appellant’s term­loan for irrigation pipe.  He 
was further informed that he was eligible to avail of only one of the two 

CIC_SM_A_2010_000255_M_43166.doc 
Page 1 of 2
waiver   schemes   ―   either   of   the   Central   Government   or   of   the   State 
Government ― and not both.

5. I find no infirmity in the replies furnished by CPIO to the appellant, 
which are upheld.

Complaint.

6. As regards the delay in communicating the reply to the appellant, 
through   his   letter   dated   13.09.2010,   Appellate   Authority   has   explained 
that the delay caused was entirely due to administrative reasons.   I find 
the reply credible.  There shall be no penalty proceedings.

7. Matter is accordingly disposed of.

8. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties. 

( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

CIC_SM_A_2010_000255_M_43166.doc 
Page 2 of 2