Appellant claimed that he didn’t receive any information within the stipulated time period - PIO: postal department’s website shows that the letters sent by them had been delivered to the appellant - CIC: appeal disposed of
1. The appellant, Shri Rajeev Kumar Arora, submitted RTI application dated 18 July 2013 before the CPIO & Deputy General Manager (DGM), State Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding correspondence between SBI and ACI worldwide or its affiliates etc., through a total of 2 points.
2. The appellant preferred an appeal dated 2 September 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) when he didn’t receive any information from the CPIO concerned within stipulated time period. No order had been passed even by the FAA in this case.
3. Dissatisfied with the behavior of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today. The respondent submitted that they had already responded to the RTI application but appellant was unnecessarily taking this plea that he had not received any reply. He also submitted that CPIO’s reply dated 7.8.2013 had been sent to the appellant via speed post on 12.8.2013, in which the information sought had been denied u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act as information sought by the appellant was not related to him and the said correspondence involved their commercial confidences, therefore, they denied the same to the appellant and also the same had been upheld by the FAA vide his order dated 10.9.2013 which was again sent via speed post on 13.9.2013 to the appellant. He added that both the letters had been sent on the address mentioned on the appellant’s RTI application and appeal respectively. He again added that on the postal department’s website it was shown that the letters sent by them had been delivered to the appellant. The respondent also submitted that the appellant had taken the same plea of not receiving the CPIO’s reply or FAA’s order in another case before the Commission in case no.CIC/VS/A/2013/002203/SH.
5. In view of the above circumstances that the appellant was not present in spite of written notice having been sent to him to plead his case, the Commission accepts the submissions made by the respondents that the RTI application had been responded according to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 well within stipulated time period. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Rajeev Kumar Arora v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/002104/MP