Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2957
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Mahesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: State Bank of India, Hardoi, UP – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/623968
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent: Rachna Singh
The CPIO's compliance with FAA directives is essential for upholding transparency in RTI proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(e) and 25(5) - The appellant sought information on specific banking transactions but was denied due to confidentiality concerning third parties. The FAA directed the CPIO to provide information upon verifying documents from the appellant. The Commission noted the CPIO complied with FAA's order. (Paras 1-4, 7)
(B) Compliance and Procedural Issues - Importance of following procedural guidelines in RTI matters was highlighted, especially in regard to providing information upon verification of identity, as stipulated under the RTI Act. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application for information regarding a bank transaction but was initially denied, leading to subsequent appeals due to perceived non-compliance.
Findings of Court:
CPIO effectively complied with the FAA's order but was directed to re-send the information following the commission's decision.
Issues: Whether the CPIO provided adequate compliance with the FAA's directive on the RTI application.
Ratio Decidendi: The CPIO's initial response met the RTI Act requirements despite the appellant's absence during hearings; still must communicate effectively to maintain transparency in RTI processes.
Result: The appeal is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti application with specific information request. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. faa directing compliance from cpio. (Para 3) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
“MAHESH KUMAR S/O SHRI KRISHNA MERA SBI HARPALPUR ME ACCOUNT NUMBER - *******7700 HAI- JISME ATM CARD, PASSBOOK, NETBANKING JAISI KOI SUBIDHA JARI NAHI HAI -ESSE MUJHE MERE KHATE KI KOI JANKRI NAHI HO PAI HAI .KRIPYA MUJHE DATE-14-03- 2022 KO CHEK NUMBER-210960 SE DEBIT KIYA GAYA USKI SAMPPORNA JANKARI PROVIDE KARANE KI KRIPA KARE
1. CHECK NO-210960 KA PAYMENT KISE KIYA GAYA HAI-AUR KIS ADHAR PAR KIYA GAYA HAI
2. CHECK NO-210960 KISKI ANUMATI SE DEBIT KIYA GAYA HAI
3. CHECK NO-210960 SE DEBIT AMOUNT SE SAMBANDHIT SAMPOORNA DASTABEJ UPLABDH KARANE KI KRIPA KARE-MAHAN KRIPA HOGI”
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“िब(cid:802)दु संূा 1, 2 एवं 3 म७ आपके (cid:554)ारा मांगी गयी सूचनाएँ तृतीय पकार से स(cid:638)्(cid:576)त (cid:681)्ঢगत सूचना ঋतीत होती है, िजसका ঋकटीकरण िकसी भी लोक गितिविध या िहत से स(cid:638)्(cid:576)त नही ंहै, यह (cid:681)्ঢ की गोपनीयता पर अनुिचत ह(cid:721)ेप का कारण होगा एवं वै(cid:695)ािसक स(cid:638)(cid:576)ो ंके तहत ब॰क के पास है, िजसे सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम की धारा 8 (1) (e) के तहत ঋकटीकरण से छूट ঋा(cid:593) है।
आपसे यह अनुरोध है िक यिद मांगी गई जानकारी आपसे संबंिधत है, तो उस ्(cid:830)थित म७ कृपया कुछ द(cid:721)ावेजी ঋमाण ঋदान कर७ िजसके मा(cid:559)म से हम यह पता लगा सक७ िक मांगी गई जानकारी आपसे संबंिधत है और यह सुिनि(cid:686)त करने के बाद, हम आपके (cid:554)ारा मांगी गई जानकारी ঋदान कर७गे।”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 06.04.2024 stated as under:-
“मामले से संबंिधत आवेदन िदनांक 29.02.2024, क७ঈीय जनसूचना अिधकारी के पআ िदनांक 20.03.2024, अपील िदनांक 23.03.2024 व सम(cid:721) ঋपআो ंके अवलोकन के उपरांत अधोह(cid:721)ारी इस िन(cid:698)ष१ पर पॽँचा है िक क७ঈीय जनसूचना अिधकारी ने अपीलकता१ के आवेदन िदनांक 29.02.2024 का उ(cid:517)र, तृतीय प ঋतीत होने के कारण नही ंिदया और आवेदक से सूचना ঋा(cid:593) करने हेतु आव(cid:692)क ঋमाण ঋ(cid:721)ुत करने का अनुरोध िकया। अपीलकता१ ने अपील के साथ अपना आधार, पैन व र(cid:542) चेक जैसे द(cid:721)ावेज ঋ(cid:721)ुत िकये है। अतः अधोह(cid:721)ारी, के(cid:574)ीय जनसूचना अिधकारी को िनद८िशत करता है की वे अपीलकता१ (cid:554)ारा ঋ(cid:721)ुत द(cid:721)ावेजो ंसे ঋमाण सुिनि(cid:686)त होने पर अपीलकता१ (cid:554)ारा आवेदन िदनांक 29.02.2024 म७ माँगी गयी सूचना ঋेिषत कर७ ।”
4. Aggrieved with the non-compliance of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.06.2024.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Rachna Singh, CM & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent submitted that the FAA’s order was duly complied with vide their letter dated 02.05.2024, wherein the available information was provided to the Appellant after verifying the documents sent by him.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application in compliance with the FAA’s order.
However, since the Appellant’s instant second appeal is filed after the date of the averred CPIO’s reply and alleges non-receipt of any compliance reply of the FAA’s order, while the Appellant also remained absent to confirm the receipt of the reply of 02.05.2024; the Commission directs the CPIO to resend a copy of the reply of 02.05.2024 to the Appellant through registered/speed post within 7 days of the receipt of this order.
8. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
