के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/654525 Shubham Rajnikant Joshi … अपीलकताग/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: State Bank Of India, Gujarat …प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 05.08.2024 FA : 04.10.2024 SA : 07.12.2024 CPIO : 03.09.2024 FAO : 24.10.2024 Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date of Decision: 22.12.2025 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Please provide daily progress report/Action Taken report/Final selection of site section of the State Bank of India RBO-1 Reginal Office-Rajkot, Advertisement Dated:23-10-23 requirement premises for Bank Branch office for Gundavadi -

Rajkot and Railnagar Rajkot

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual has been exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.10.2024 stated as under: -

“The appeal is filed by the appellant after expiry of stipulated time as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The delay is condoned, and the appeal is hereby considered as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the reply furnished by the CPIO & Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, RAO-1, Rajkot vide its order No. SBI/RAO-1/RTI/2024-25/23 dated 03.09.2024, wherein the CPIO has not furnished the information sought vide point number 1 of the RTI application as per provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is observed that the information sought vide point number 1 of the RTI application is of personal nature and commercial confidence in nature. Hence, it is exempted from disclosure as per provisions of section 8(1)(j) read with section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The order of the CPIO stands amended to that extent only. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.”

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.12.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Ravi Shankar, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in addition to their initial reply dated 03.09.2024 wherein they claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, the information also attracted exemption under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, considering that the same consisted of commercially sensitive information. He further stated that no daily progress report was available with them, since the selection was done as per tender norms. Besides, final selection report was available, however, the same consisted details exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the averred report could not be disclosed to the appellant.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent is incorrect, since the exemption claimed under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act is not squarely applicable to the information sought by the appellant i.e. action taken report on site selection. During the course of hearing, the CPIO relied upon the FAA’s observations and contended that although the final selection report was available with them, the same contained commercially sensitive details, hence, exempted under Secti