{"id":230302,"date":"2010-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-25T13:20:36","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T07:50:36","slug":"shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                   CENTRAL\u00a0INFORMATION\u00a0COMMISSION\n                                           .....\n<\/pre>\n<p> F.No.CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/000460\u00adAT                    F.No.CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/000466\u00adAT<br \/>\n F.No.CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/000467\u00adAT\u00a0                                          Total\u00a0:\u00a03\u00a0Appeals<\/p>\n<p>                                                  Dated,\u00a0the\u00a012 \u00a0November,\u00a02010.<\/p>\n<pre>\n                                                                   th\n\n\n\n\n Appellant          : Shri\u00a0S.\u00a0Umapathi\n                       \u00a0\n Respondent         : State\u00a0Bank\u00a0of\u00a0India,\u00a0Mumbai\n s\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>       This \u00a0 matter \u00a0 came \u00a0 up \u00a0 for \u00a0 hearing \u00a0 on \u00a0 09.11.2010 \u00a0 pursuant \u00a0 to\u00a0<br \/>\nCommission&#8217;s \u00a0 notice \u00a0 dated \u00a0 21.10.2010. \u00a0 \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 was \u00a0 absent \u00a0 when\u00a0<br \/>\ncalled, \u00a0 while \u00a0 the \u00a0 respondents \u00a0 were \u00a0 represented \u00a0 by \u00a0 Shri \u00a0 J.Venugopal,\u00a0<br \/>\nAssistant\u00a0General\u00a0Manager\u00a0(Law).\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2010\/000460\u00adAT:\n<\/p>\n<p>2.     It\u00a0is\u00a0seen\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0filed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0along\u00a0with\u00a0his\u00a0<br \/>\nsecond\u00adappeal,\u00a0that\u00a0CPIO\u00a0&amp;\u00a0General\u00a0Manager\u00a0(OL\u00a0&amp;\u00a0CS),\u00a0SBI,\u00a0Mumbai\u00a0<br \/>\nreplied \u00a0 to \u00a0 his \u00a0 RTI\u00adapplication \u00a0 dated \u00a0 22.08.2009, \u00a0 on \u00a0 19.12.2009. \u00a0 This\u00a0<br \/>\nmatter \u00a0 was \u00a0 considered \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 Appellate \u00a0 Authority \u00a0 in \u00a0 a \u00a0 first \u00a0 appellate\u00a0<br \/>\nproceeding, \u00a0 following \u00a0 which \u00a0 he \u00a0 issued \u00a0 an \u00a0 order \u00a0 dated \u00a0 19.01.2010.\u00a0<br \/>\nAppellate \u00a0 Authority \u00a0 noted \u00a0 that \u00a0 CPIO \u00a0 consented \u00a0 to \u00a0 provide \u00a0 information\u00a0<br \/>\nrelating \u00a0 to \u00a0 appellant&#8217;s \u00a0 queries \u00a0 at \u00a0 Sl.Nos.1, \u00a0 3, \u00a0 6 \u00a0 and \u00a0 7 \u00a0 and \u00a0 requested\u00a0<br \/>\nappellant\u00a0to\u00a0remit\u00a0an\u00a0amount \u00a0of\u00a0Rs.412\u00a0towards \u00a0cost\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0number \u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\ndocuments \u00a0 to \u00a0 be \u00a0 made \u00a0 available. \u00a0 \u00a0 This \u00a0 also \u00a0 included \u00a0 the \u00a0 information\u00a0<br \/>\nrelating \u00a0to\u00a0queries \u00a0at\u00a0Sl.Nos.5, \u00a011\u00a0and \u00a012.\u00a0 \u00a0CPIO \u00a0declined \u00a0to\u00a0disclose\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0queries\u00a0at\u00a0Sl.Nos.2,\u00a04,\u00a08,\u00a09\u00a0and\u00a010\u00a0as\u00a0this\u00a0involved\u00a0<br \/>\ncollection\u00a0and\u00a0collation\u00a0of\u00a0information,\u00a0which\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0required\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nRTI\u00a0Act.\u00a0 \u00a0Besides,\u00a0the\u00a0collection\u00a0and\u00a0collation\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0information\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nCIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc\u00a0<br \/>\n                                                                              Page\u00a01\u00a0of\u00a08<br \/>\n period\u00a02004\u00a0to\u00a02008\u00a0would\u00a0lead\u00a0to\u00a0disproportionate\u00a0diversion\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0<br \/>\nauthority&#8217;s\u00a0resources.\u00a0This\u00a0information\u00a0was\u00a0further\u00a0declined,\u00a0as\u00a0according\u00a0<br \/>\nto\u00a0the\u00a0judgement\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority,\u00a0it\u00a0attracted\u00a0Section\u00a08(1)(j)\u00a0and\u00a0<br \/>\nno\u00a0public\u00a0interest\u00a0warranted\u00a0that\u00a0this\u00a0exemption\u00a0should\u00a0be\u00a0overridden.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     During \u00a0 the \u00a0 hearing \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 second\u00adappeal, \u00a0 it \u00a0 was \u00a0 stated \u00a0 that\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0queries\u00a0at\u00a0Sl.Nos.1,\u00a03,\u00a06\u00a0and\u00a07\u00a0as\u00a0well\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0queries\u00a0<br \/>\nat\u00a0Sl.Nos.5,\u00a011\u00a0and\u00a012\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0on\u00a019.12.2009\u00a0<br \/>\nand\u00a027.01.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     Appellant\u00a0has\u00a0questioned\u00a0the\u00a0decision\u00a0under\u00a0provisions\u00a0of\u00a0Sections\u00a0<br \/>\n7(9)\u00a0and\u00a08(1)(j)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a0not\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0his\u00a0queries\u00a0<br \/>\nat\u00a0Sl.Nos.2,\u00a04,\u00a08,\u00a09\u00a0and\u00a010.\u00a0\u00a0He\u00a0has\u00a0also\u00a0cited\u00a0some\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0decisions\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0Commission\u00a0in\u00a0support\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     It \u00a0 is \u00a0 seen \u00a0 that \u00a0 appellant \u00a0 has \u00a0 crammed \u00a0 into \u00a0 his \u00a0 RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0<br \/>\nmultiple \u00a0 queries \u00a0 comprising \u00a0 multiple \u00a0 categories \u00a0 of \u00a0 information. \u00a0 \u00a0 Under\u00a0<br \/>\nSection\u00a06(1)\u00a0an\u00a0applicant\u00a0is\u00a0required\u00a0to\u00a0file\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0for\u00a0either\u00a0one\u00a0<br \/>\nor \u00a0 one \u00a0 category \u00a0 of \u00a0 information. \u00a0 \u00a0 This \u00a0 application, \u00a0 therefore, \u00a0 is \u00a0 not\u00a0<br \/>\nmaintainable. \u00a0 \u00a0Rajendra \u00a0 Singh \u00a0 Vs. \u00a0 CBI; \u00a0 Appeal \u00a0 No. \u00a0 CIC\/WB\/C\/2007\/<br \/>\n00967;\u00a0Date\u00a0of\u00a0Decision:\u00a019.06.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     Nevertheless, \u00a0 considering \u00a0 the \u00a0 fact \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 respondents \u00a0 have\u00a0<br \/>\nreplied\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant&#8217;s\u00a0several\u00a0and\u00a0multifarious\u00a0queries,\u00a0these\u00a0are\u00a0taken\u00a0<br \/>\nup\u00a0for\u00a0disposal\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0second\u00adappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.      I\u00a0have\u00a0noticed\u00a0that\u00a0respondents\u00a0have\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0all\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 information \u00a0 as \u00a0 held \u00a0 by \u00a0 them \u00a0 in \u00a0 regard \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 queries \u00a0 to \u00a0 which\u00a0<br \/>\ndisclosure\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0was\u00a0possible,\u00a0given\u00a0the\u00a0text\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0tenor\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nquery.\u00a0As\u00a0regards \u00a0others, \u00a0they \u00a0have\u00a0taken\u00a0the\u00a0plea\u00a0that\u00a0they \u00a0were \u00a0not\u00a0<br \/>\nrequired\u00a0to\u00a0collect\u00a0and\u00a0collate\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0it\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0for\u00a0<br \/>\nthat \u00a0 would \u00a0 amount \u00a0 to \u00a0 generating \u00a0 information. \u00a0 Respondents \u00a0 were \u00a0 well\u00a0<br \/>\nwithin \u00a0 their \u00a0 right \u00a0 to \u00a0 take \u00a0 this \u00a0 position \u00a0 because \u00a0 under \u00a0 Section \u00a0 2(f) \u00a0 and\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc\u00a0<br \/>\n                                                                               Page\u00a02\u00a0of\u00a08<br \/>\n Section\u00a02(j)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a0read\u00a0with\u00a0Section\u00a06(1),\u00a0their\u00a0duty\u00a0was\u00a0limited\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nproviding \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 appellant \u00a0 information \u00a0 as \u00a0 they \u00a0 held \u00a0 it. \u00a0 \u00a0 Answering\u00a0<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s \u00a0 loaded \u00a0 queries \u00a0 through \u00a0 collecting \u00a0 and \u00a0 collating \u00a0 information\u00a0<br \/>\nwas \u00a0 fraught \u00a0 with \u00a0 the \u00a0 danger \u00a0 of \u00a0 errors \u00a0 creeping \u00a0 into \u00a0 them \u00a0 and \u00a0 then\u00a0<br \/>\nexposing \u00a0 the \u00a0 respondents \u00a0 to \u00a0 charge \u00a0 of \u00a0 giving \u00a0 false \u00a0 and \u00a0 misleading\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation.\u00a0\u00a0Commission,\u00a0in\u00a0its\u00a0decision\u00a0in\u00a0Sanjay\u00a0Bhaty\u00a0Vs.\u00a0Kandla\u00a0Port \u00a0<br \/>\nTrust;\u00a0Appeal\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AT\/A\/2010\/000622;\u00a0Date\u00a0of\u00a0Decision:\u00a029.10.2010, \u00a0<br \/>\nhad \u00a0 held \u00a0 that \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 Act \u00a0 did \u00a0 not \u00a0 enjoin \u00a0 a \u00a0 public \u00a0 authority \u00a0 or \u00a0 a \u00a0 CPIO \u00a0 to\u00a0<br \/>\n&#8216;generate&#8217;\u00a0information\u00a0for\u00a0an\u00a0applicant&#8217;s\u00a0convenience.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    In\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above,\u00a0I\u00a0find\u00a0no\u00a0infirmity\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0orders\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0<br \/>\nand\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority,\u00a0which\u00a0are\u00a0upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.      Appeal\u00a0fails.\u00a0\u00a0Rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Complaint:\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Appellant \u00a0 has \u00a0 also \u00a0 complained \u00a0 against \u00a0 delayed \u00a0 supply \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\/replies \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPIO. \u00a0 \u00a0 He \u00a0 has \u00a0 also \u00a0 charged \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPIO \u00a0 &amp;\u00a0<br \/>\nGeneral \u00a0Manager \u00a0 (Network\u00adI), \u00a0SBI, \u00a0Bangalore \u00a0with \u00a0failure \u00a0to \u00a0act \u00a0in\u00a0 his\u00a0<br \/>\nown \u00a0 office \u00a0 to \u00a0 provide \u00a0 the \u00a0 information \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 appellant \u00a0 as \u00a0 requested\u00a0<br \/>\nthrough\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adapplication\u00a0and\u00a0erroneously\u00a0transferring\u00a0the\u00a0application\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nCPIO,\u00a0Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. It\u00a0was\u00a0explained\u00a0by\u00a0CPIO\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0hearing\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0transfer\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\napplication \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 appellant \u00a0 became \u00a0 necessary \u00a0 as \u00a0 the \u00a0 requested\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation \u00a0 was \u00a0 not \u00a0 held \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPIO, \u00a0 Bangalore, \u00a0 before \u00a0 whom \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\noriginal\u00a0application\u00a0was\u00a0filed.\u00a0The\u00a0information\u00a0requested\u00a0was\u00a0at\u00a0multiple\u00a0<br \/>\npoints\u00a0from\u00a0where\u00a0these\u00a0needed\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0collected.\u00a0This\u00a0made\u00a0transfer\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0application\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO,\u00a0Bangalore\u00a0inevitable.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. On\u00a0the\u00a0subject\u00a0of\u00a0delayed\u00a0supply\u00a0of\u00a0information, \u00a0CPIO\u00a0explained\u00a0<br \/>\nthat\u00a0this\u00a0was\u00a0caused\u00a0mainly\u00a0because\u00a0the\u00a0applicant\u00a0chose\u00a0to\u00a0file\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00ad<\/p>\n<p>CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc\u00a0<br \/>\n                                                                                  Page\u00a03\u00a0of\u00a08<br \/>\n application\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO,\u00a0Bangalore,\u00a0who\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0concerned\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0seeking\u00a0within\u00a0the\u00a0meaning\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a06(1)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0<br \/>\nAct.\u00a0It\u00a0should\u00a0have\u00a0been\u00a0open\u00a0for\u00a0that\u00a0CPIO\u00a0to\u00a0reject\u00a0application\u00a0on\u00a0that\u00a0<br \/>\ncount\u00a0alone\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0light\u00a0of\u00a0Commission&#8217;s\u00a0decision\u00a0in\u00a0Ketan\u00a0Kantilal\u00a0Modi \u00a0<br \/>\nVs. \u00a0 CBEC; \u00a0 Appeal \u00a0 No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/01280; \u00a0 Date \u00a0 of \u00a0 Decision: \u00a0<br \/>\n22.09.2009.\u00a0\u00a0But\u00a0helpfully,\u00a0he\u00a0chose\u00a0to\u00a0transfer\u00a0it\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0offices,\u00a0where\u00a0he\u00a0<br \/>\nbelieved\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0as\u00a0requested\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0was\u00a0held.\u00a0This\u00a0act\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0helpfulness\u00a0has\u00a0now\u00a0assumed\u00a0the\u00a0characteristic\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0failure\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0eyes\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0this\u00a0appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. On\u00a0the\u00a0basis\u00a0of\u00a0what\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0stated\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO, \u00a0I\u00a0agree\u00a0that\u00a0<br \/>\nthere\u00a0were\u00a0reasonable\u00a0grounds\u00a0which\u00a0caused\u00a0the\u00a0delay\u00a0in\u00a0supply\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a020(1)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. In \u00a0 view \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 above, \u00a0 there \u00a0 is \u00a0 no \u00a0 case \u00a0 either \u00a0 for \u00a0 a \u00a0 penalty\u00a0<br \/>\nproceeding\u00a0or\u00a0compensating\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0as\u00a0demanded\u00a0by\u00a0him.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.    Matter\u00a0closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2010\/000466\u00adAT:\n<\/p>\n<p>16. As \u00a0in\u00a0the \u00a0previous \u00a0appeal,\u00a0in\u00a0this \u00a0one\u00a0also\u00a0appellant \u00a0has \u00a0sought\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation \u00a0for \u00a0the \u00a0period \u00a001.01.2004 \u00a0till \u00a0date \u00a0regarding \u00a0several \u00a0details\u00a0<br \/>\nabout\u00a0supervising\u00a0staff\u00a0\u2015 \u00a0total\u00a0number,\u00a0designation\u00a0and\u00a0names,\u00a0types\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nfacility\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0them,\u00a0for\u00a0leased\u00a0accommodation,\u00a0sanctioning\u00a0authority\u00a0<br \/>\nfor\u00a0such\u00a0entitlements\u00a0and\u00a0Leave\u00a0Registers\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0supervising\u00a0staff\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nperiod\u00a02004\u00a0till\u00a0the\u00a0merger\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0State\u00a0Bank\u00a0of\u00a0Saurashtra\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0State\u00a0<br \/>\nBank\u00a0of\u00a0India\u00a0in\u00a02008.\n<\/p>\n<p>17. This\u00a0information \u00a0was\u00a0denied\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0ground\u00a0that\u00a0those\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nqueries\u00a0at\u00a0Sl.Nos.1,\u00a02,\u00a03\u00a0and\u00a05\u00a0were\u00a0not\u00a0centrally\u00a0maintained\u00a0and\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0<br \/>\nnot\u00a0possible\u00a0to\u00a0collect\u00a0and\u00a0collate\u00a0the\u00a0same.\u00a0 \u00a0Section\u00a07(9)\u00a0was\u00a0cited\u00a0as\u00a0<br \/>\nwell\u00a0as\u00a0Section\u00a08(1)(j).\n<\/p>\n<p>CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc\u00a0<br \/>\n                                                                          Page\u00a04\u00a0of\u00a08\n<\/p>\n<p> 18. Appellant,\u00a0as\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0previous\u00a0case,\u00a0faulted\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0<br \/>\nfor\u00a0not\u00a0applying\u00a0his\u00a0mind\u00a0and,\u00a0endorsing\u00a0the\u00a0views\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0without\u00a0<br \/>\ndue\u00a0consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>19. During \u00a0 the \u00a0 hearing, \u00a0 it \u00a0 was \u00a0 explained \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPIO \u00a0 that \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation \u00a0declined \u00a0to\u00a0the \u00a0appellant \u00a0was \u00a0the \u00a0one\u00a0which \u00a0related \u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nperiod\u00a0prior\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0merger\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0State\u00a0Bank\u00a0of\u00a0Saurashtra\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0State\u00a0<br \/>\nBank \u00a0 of \u00a0 India. \u00a0 \u00a0 The \u00a0 requested \u00a0 information \u00a0 has \u00a0 been \u00a0 found \u00a0 to \u00a0 be\u00a0<br \/>\nuntraceable. \u00a0 \u00a0 Even \u00a0 if \u00a0 an \u00a0 attempt \u00a0 is \u00a0 made \u00a0 to \u00a0 locate \u00a0 this \u00a0 information, \u00a0 it\u00a0<br \/>\nwould\u00a0be\u00a0a\u00a0Herculean\u00a0task\u00a0because\u00a0it\u00a0relates\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0period\u00a0prior\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nmerger \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 State \u00a0 Bank \u00a0 of \u00a0 Saurashtra \u00a0 with \u00a0 the \u00a0 SBI. \u00a0 \u00a0 It \u00a0 also \u00a0 meant\u00a0<br \/>\ncompiling \u00a0 this \u00a0 information \u00a0 from \u00a0 numerous \u00a0 files \u00a0 and \u00a0examining \u00a0 it\u00a0 in \u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\ncontext \u00a0 of\u00a0 the \u00a0rules \u00a0 followed \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0State \u00a0 Bank \u00a0of \u00a0 Saurashtra \u00a0 prior \u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nmerger. \u00a0 \u00a0 This \u00a0 was \u00a0 bound \u00a0 to \u00a0 be \u00a0 a \u00a0 time\u00adconsuming, \u00a0 labourious \u00a0 and\u00a0<br \/>\nexpensive\u00a0exercise.\n<\/p>\n<p>20. I\u00a0agree\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0respondents\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0requested\u00a0information\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0<br \/>\ncentrally\u00a0maintained\u00a0and\u00a0collecting\u00a0and\u00a0collating\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0an\u00a0obligation\u00a0cast\u00a0<br \/>\nby \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 Act \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 public \u00a0 authority \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 context \u00a0 of \u00a0 Section \u00a0 2(f) \u00a0 and\u00a0<br \/>\nSection\u00a02(j)\u00a0read\u00a0with\u00a0Section\u00a06(1)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>21. Nothing\u00a0what\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0has\u00a0stated\u00a0in\u00a0his\u00a0second\u00adappeal\u00a0petition\u00a0<br \/>\nderogates\u00a0from\u00a0that\u00a0position.\n<\/p>\n<p>Complaint:\n<\/p>\n<p>22. As\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0previous\u00a0case,\u00a0appellant\u00a0has\u00a0complained\u00a0about\u00a0delay\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nsupplying\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0and\u00a0demanded\u00a0that\u00a0penalty\u00a0be\u00a0imposed\u00a0<br \/>\non\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0besides\u00a0compensation\u00a0be\u00a0awarded\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant.\u00a0\u00a0He\u00a0had\u00a0<br \/>\nasked\u00a0for\u00a0personal\u00a0hearing,\u00a0but\u00a0despite\u00a0notice,\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0present.\n<\/p>\n<p>CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc\u00a0<br \/>\n                                                                                 Page\u00a05\u00a0of\u00a08\n<\/p>\n<p> 23. The \u00a0 decision \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 previous \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 (viz. \u00a0 Appeal \u00a0 No.CIC\/AT\/A\/<br \/>\n2010\/000466\u00adAT)\u00a0will\u00a0apply\u00a0to\u00a0this\u00a0appeal\u00a0as\u00a0well\u00a0mutatis\u00admutandis.\n<\/p>\n<p>24.    Appeal\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0these\u00a0directions.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2010\/000467\u00adAT:\n<\/p>\n<p>25. Appellant&#8217;s \u00a0 RTI\u00adapplication \u00a0 dated \u00a0 12.11.2009 \u00a0 sought \u00a0 a \u00a0 series \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0relating\u00a0to,\u00a0what\u00a0he\u00a0described\u00a0as,\u00a0&#8220;action\u00a0taken\u00a0on\u00a0my\u00a0appeal\u00a0<br \/>\nagainst \u00a0 voluntary \u00a0 vacation \u00a0 of \u00a0 employment \u00a0 under \u00a0 Rule \u00a0 40 \u00a0 (3) \u00a0 of \u00a0 State\u00a0<br \/>\nBank \u00a0 of \u00a0 Saurashtra \u00a0 Officers \u00a0 Service \u00a0 Regulation \u00a0 (now \u00a0 SBI)&#8221;. \u00a0<br \/>\nHe \u00a0 sought \u00a0 these \u00a0 information \u00a0 regarding \u00a0 name \u00a0 and \u00a0 designation \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nofficial\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0corporate\u00a0centre\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0SBI\u00a0who\u00a0received\u00a0his\u00a0above\u00a0appeal\u00a0<br \/>\ndated\u00a017.03.2009\u00a0along\u00a0with\u00a0extracts\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Mail\u00a0Inward\u00a0Register,\u00a0date\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nreceipt,\u00a0mode\u00a0of\u00a0receipt,\u00a0etc.;\u00a0the\u00a0chronological\u00a0details\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0action\u00a0taken\u00a0<br \/>\nby \u00a0 Deputy \u00a0 MD \u00a0 and \u00a0 CDO; \u00a0 copies \u00a0 of \u00a0 all \u00a0 letters \u00a0 including \u00a0 file\u00adnotings \u00a0 in\u00a0<br \/>\nconnection\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0processing\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0matter;\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0status\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 appeal; \u00a0 reasons \u00a0 for \u00a0 its \u00a0 non\u00addisposal; \u00a0 status \u00a0 of \u00a0 his \u00a0 follow\u00adup \u00a0 letter\u00a0<br \/>\ndated \u00a0 05.08.2009; \u00a0 certified \u00a0 copies \u00a0 of \u00a0 all \u00a0 the \u00a0 correspondence \u00a0 that \u00a0 had\u00a0<br \/>\nbeen\u00a0exchanged\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0connection.\n<\/p>\n<p>26. CPIO,\u00a0through\u00a0a\u00a0communication\u00a0dated\u00a015.12.2009,\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nappellant \u00a0 point\u00adwise \u00a0 replies, \u00a0 which \u00a0 was \u00a0 followed \u00a0 up \u00a0 by \u00a0 another \u00a0 letter\u00a0<br \/>\ndated\u00a022.12.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>27. During\u00a0hearing,\u00a0respondents\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0except\u00a0for\u00a0query\u00a0at\u00a0Sl.No.4\u00a0<br \/>\n\u2015 \u00a0 relating \u00a0 to \u00a0 present \u00a0 status \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 (dated \u00a0 17.03.2009) \u00a0 \u2015 \u00a0 and \u00a0<br \/>\nquery\u00a0at\u00a0Sl.No.5\u00a0\u2015\u00a0reasons\u00a0for\u00a0non\u00addisposal\u00a0\u2015\u00a0\u00a0all\u00a0other\u00a0information\u00a0has\u00a0<br \/>\nbeen\u00a0furnished\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant.\u00a0These\u00a0two\u00a0queries\u00a0could\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0replied\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nas\u00a0the\u00a0decision\u00admaking\u00a0process\u00a0was\u00a0still\u00a0incomplete.\n<\/p>\n<p>CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc\u00a0<br \/>\n                                                                              Page\u00a06\u00a0of\u00a08\n<\/p>\n<p> 28. Appellant, \u00a0 in \u00a0 his \u00a0 grounds \u00a0 of \u00a0 appeal, \u00a0 has \u00a0 stated \u00a0 that \u00a0 incomplete\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0was\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0in\u00a0respect\u00a0of\u00a0queries\u00a0at\u00a0Sl.Nos.1,\u00a04,\u00a05,\u00a06\u00a0<br \/>\nand\u00a08.\u00a0\u00a0He\u00a0demands\u00a0that,\u00a0for\u00a0query\u00a0at\u00a0Sl.No.5,\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0entitled\u00a0to\u00a0receive\u00a0<br \/>\nfrom\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0authority\u00a0the\u00a0reasons\u00a0for\u00a0its\u00a0administrative\u00a0or\u00a0quasi\u00adjudicial\u00a0<br \/>\ndecision\u00a0as\u00a0spelt\u00adout\u00a0in\u00a0Section\u00a04(1)(d)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>29. From\u00a0the\u00a0appeal \u00a0petition,\u00a0it\u00a0would\u00a0seem\u00a0that\u00a0appellant \u00a0wishes\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nengage\u00a0the\u00a0respondents\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0dialogue\u00a0about\u00a0the\u00a0quantity\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0quality\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0him.\u00a0 \u00a0I\u00a0have\u00a0noted\u00a0in\u00a0some\u00a0of\u00a0my\u00a0earlier\u00a0<br \/>\ndecisions \u00a0that\u00a0this\u00a0appellant\u00a0has\u00a0filed\u00a0a\u00a0series\u00a0of\u00a0petitions \u00a0with\u00a0multiple\u00a0<br \/>\nqueries\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0routine\u00a0and\u00a0aggressive\u00a0fashion\u00a0largely\u00a0centered\u00a0on\u00a0his\u00a0own\u00a0<br \/>\nseverance \u00a0 of \u00a0 relationship \u00a0 with \u00a0the \u00a0erstwhile \u00a0 State \u00a0 Bank \u00a0of \u00a0 Saurashtra.\u00a0<br \/>\nThis\u00a0petition\u00a0is\u00a0no\u00a0exception.\n<\/p>\n<p>30. However,\u00a0in\u00a0my\u00a0view,\u00a0ends\u00a0of\u00a0justice\u00a0should\u00a0be\u00a0met\u00a0by\u00a0allowing\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nappellant\u00a0to\u00a0inspect\u00a0the\u00a0records\u00a0held\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0authority\u00a0in\u00a0relation\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0RTI\u00adqueries\u00a0he\u00a0has\u00a0made\u00a0so\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0conceive\u00a0for\u00a0himself\u00a0first\u00adhand\u00a0as\u00a0<br \/>\nto \u00a0 how \u00a0 the \u00a0 above \u00a0 appeal\u00adpetition \u00a0 of \u00a0 his \u00a0 was \u00a0 processed \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 public\u00a0<br \/>\nauthority.\u00a0\u00a0While\u00a0appellant\u00a0shall\u00a0be\u00a0entitled\u00a0to\u00a0receive\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0as\u00a0it\u00a0<br \/>\nis\u00a0on\u00a0record,\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0his\u00a0right\u00a0to\u00a0demand\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0authority\u00a0explain\u00a0<br \/>\nto\u00a0him\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0why\u00a0no\u00a0action\u00a0was\u00a0taken\u00a0on\u00a0his\u00a0appeal\u00adpetition,\u00a0or\u00a0why\u00a0action\u00a0<br \/>\nwas\u00a0taken\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0particular\u00a0way\u00a0and,\u00a0not\u00a0another.\u00a0 \u00a0His\u00a0reading\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a0<br \/>\n4(1)(d)\u00a0is\u00a0entirely\u00a0incorrect.\u00a0 \u00a0He\u00a0may\u00a0refer\u00a0to\u00a0Commission&#8217;s\u00a0 \u00a0decision\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nVirchand\u00a0A.\u00a0Shah\u00a0Vs.\u00a0Central\u00a0Excise;\u00a0Appeal\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/01298; \u00a0<br \/>\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Decision:\u00a018.06.2008\u00a0about\u00a0the\u00a0interpretation\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a04(1)(d).\n<\/p>\n<p>31. It\u00a0is,\u00a0therefore,\u00a0directed\u00a0that,\u00a0within\u00a0four\u00a0weeks,\u00a0on\u00a0a\u00a0day\u00a0and\u00a0time\u00a0<br \/>\nto \u00a0 be \u00a0 intimated \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 appellant \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPIO, \u00a0 he \u00a0 shall \u00a0 be \u00a0 allowed \u00a0 to\u00a0<br \/>\ninspect\u00a0the\u00a0records\u00a0held\u00a0in\u00a0relation\u00a0to\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00adqueries.\u00a0He\u00a0shall\u00a0be\u00a0allowed\u00a0<br \/>\nto\u00a0take\u00a0such\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0as\u00a0he\u00a0might\u00a0choose.\u00a0\u00a0Should\u00a0he\u00a0need\u00a0certified\u00a0<br \/>\ncopies\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0shall\u00a0take\u00a0action\u00a0under\u00a0Sections\u00a074\u00a0and\u00a076\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Indian\u00a0<br \/>\nEvidence\u00a0Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc\u00a0<br \/>\n                                                                                Page\u00a07\u00a0of\u00a08\n<\/p>\n<p> 32.    Appeal\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0with\u00a0these\u00a0directions.\n<\/p>\n<p>Complaint:\n<\/p>\n<p>33. Appellant&#8217;s \u00a0 complaint \u00a0 is \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 same \u00a0 lines \u00a0 as \u00a0 in \u00a0 previous \u00a0 two\u00a0<br \/>\nappeals. \u00a0 \u00a0 The \u00a0 decision \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 above \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 (viz. \u00a0 No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2010\/<br \/>\n000460\u00adAT)\u00a0will\u00a0apply\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0one\u00a0as\u00a0well\u00a0mutatis\u00admutandis.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>34. Matter\u00a0closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>35.    Copy\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0direction\u00a0be\u00a0sent\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0parties.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                       (\u00a0A.N.\u00a0TIWARI\u00a0)<br \/>\n                                    CHIEF\u00a0INFORMATION\u00a0COMMISSIONER<\/p>\n<p>CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc\u00a0<br \/>\n                                                                        Page\u00a08\u00a0of\u00a08\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010 CENTRAL\u00a0INFORMATION\u00a0COMMISSION &#8230;.. F.No.CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/000460\u00adAT F.No.CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/000466\u00adAT F.No.CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/000467\u00adAT\u00a0 Total\u00a0:\u00a03\u00a0Appeals Dated,\u00a0the\u00a012 \u00a0November,\u00a02010. th Appellant : Shri\u00a0S.\u00a0Umapathi \u00a0 Respondent : State\u00a0Bank\u00a0of\u00a0India,\u00a0Mumbai s This \u00a0 matter \u00a0 came \u00a0 up \u00a0 for \u00a0 hearing \u00a0 on \u00a0 09.11.2010 \u00a0 pursuant \u00a0 to\u00a0 Commission&#8217;s \u00a0 notice \u00a0 dated \u00a0 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-25T07:50:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T07:50:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2003,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T07:50:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-25T07:50:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T07:50:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010"},"wordCount":2003,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010","name":"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T07:50:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-umapathi-s-vs-state-bank-of-india-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri.Umapathi.S vs State Bank Of India on 12 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230302"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230302\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}