Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000268 dated 15-04-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 8 December 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Shabbir Sheikh
Qtr. No. 38/3, Type - II,
Ordnance Factory Bhandara,
Jawahar Nagar, Distt. Bhandara,
Maharashtra - 441 906.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Synergy,
Plot No. C - 6, G - Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, P.B. No.8123,
Bandra, Mumbai - 400 051.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Sharma,
(ii) Smt. Iyer
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated April 15,
2008, informed the CPIO that he was advised by the Branch that an account
holder could withdraw money from his account once in every four months
and wanted to have a copy of the relevant rule, if any, in this regard. In his
reply dated July 9, 2008, the CPIO advised him to contact the Branch and
follow their instructions. Not satisfied with this reply, he approached the
Appellate Authority on July 19, 2008. That authority disposed of his appeal
in his order dated August 29, 2008 in which he did not find the response of
the CPIO satisfactory and directed him to provide the desired information
with clarity. Following this direction, the CPIO wrote to the Appellant on
September 15, 2008 and provided him with detailed clarification on his
queries. The Appellant, nevertheless, has chosen to come before the CIC in
second appeal.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was not
present in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the Mumbai studio
CIC/SM/A/2009/000268
of the NIC. We heard his submissions. While the information sought has been
finally provided by the CPIO on the orders of the Appellate Authority, the
fact remains that there was considerable delay which would render the CPIO
liable for imposition of penalty as per the provisions of Section 20 of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, before we decide on the penalty,
we would like the CPIO to explain in writing within 10 working days from the
receipt of this order, if he had any reasonable cause for this delay. It may
be noted that if we do not receive his explanation in time, we will proceed
to decide on the penalty ex parte. However, if the CPIO wants to be heard
in person in this regard, he may say so in his explanation.
4. The case is, thus, disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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/2009/000268