Shri. Sanjay Patil vs Syndicate Bank on 16 August, 2011

Central Information Commission
Shri. Sanjay Patil vs Syndicate Bank on 16 August, 2011
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                        Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000387/SG/14085
                                                                Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000387/SG

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                                   :    Mr. Sanjay Patil
                                                 5/1 Shri Shakti Kempageri
                                                 Line Bazar, Dharwad-580001
                                                 Karnataka

Respondent                                  :     Mr. Venu Gopal
                                                  Deemed PIO & Chief Manager
                                                  Syndicate Bank, regional
                                                  Office, Sai Nagar Road,
                                                  Unkal Cross, Hubli-580021

RTI application filed on                    :     17-12-2009
PIO replied on                              :     24-03-2010
First Appeal filed on                       :     19-04-2010
First Appellate Authority order of          :     21-05-2010
Second Appeal received on                   :     20-01-2011

List of Panel Values with details as on the date of Empanelment:
 Q.No                Information Sought                                      Reply of PIO
1.         Qualification                              List of panel valuers of the Bank's Bangalore and Hubli
                                                      Regions, pre and post 2007, with their basic qualification
                                                      and experience.
2.         Experience & Expertise as valuer.          This was not a mandatory requirement as per the then
                                                      Bank's policy, pre 2007. Hence, details furnished post-
                                                      2007.
3.         Whether registered as valuer in CBDT.      This was not a mandatory requirement as per the then
                                                      Bank's policy, Subsequently it has been stipulated that
                                                      the valuer should be a member of institute like Institute
                                                      of Engineers, Institute of Valuers-Delhi.
                                                      pre 2007. recognized
4.         Whether member/fellow of institute of This is only a preferable qualification and not mandatory.
           valuers.                                   The information in this regard is not available.
5.         Whether already empanelled as Valuer in The information pertaining to date of empanelment is
           other banks                                also furnished in the list above referred to.
6.         Date of Empanelment & Category (like The Bank is unable to furnish the information relating to
           land & building, Plant & Machinaries date of application, date of approval and name of the
           etc.                                       branch from where the application was routed as per
7.         Date of Application & Date of Approval Section 7(9) of the RTI Act-2005 as this would divert the
8.         Name of the branch from where the resources of the Bank. disproportionately.
           application was routed

Grounds for the First Appeal:
The PIO reply was false, misleading and vague.
 Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO has given reply stating that it is not a mandatory requirement as per policy and thus information
is not available with PIO.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
PIO had not given complete and true information.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patil on video conference from NIC-Dharwad Studio;
Respondent : Mr. Venu Gopal, Deemed PIO & Chief Manager on video conference from NIC-Dharwad
Studio;

The PIO has provided most of the information but is now directed to provide the date of
application of the valuers and the exact date on which they were empanelled with respect to the entire list.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before
10 September 2011.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (kh)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *