The fact that the matter had already been decided was not brought to the notice of the CIC during the hearing either by the appellant or by the respondents - CIC advised the respondents to thoroughly check the facts of case prior to appearing before it
The fact that the matter had already been decided was not brought to the notice of the CIC during the hearing either by the appellant or by the respondents - CIC advised the respondents that they should also thoroughly check the facts of case prior to appearing before the Commission & intimate to the Commission if the same matter had already been decided by the Commission earlier
1.The appellant, Shri Avinash Kumar submitted RTI application dated 30 August 2011 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Patna; seeking information regarding requirement of submitting asset and liability statement yearly by an Assistant Manager of the Bank etc., through a total of 7 points.
2. Vide reply 27 September 2011, CPIO furnished information on point nos. 1, 3 & 4; denied information on point no. 2 u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 and also denied the information on point nos. 5, 6 & 7 on the ground that the matter was sub judice before the competent court. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply on point nos. 2, 5, 6 & 7, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 5 October 2011 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been wrongly denied the information by the CPIO concerned. No order has been passed by the FAA in this case.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The appellant stated that he wanted the copy of assets and liability statement in case of Shri Raj Kumar Mishra posted in Bihar University Campus Branch of the SBI for the years 200102 to 200405. He also wanted to know if any complaint was received against Shri Raj Kumar Mishra and any investigation/enquiry started etc.
5. The respondents submitted that while all officers are required to submit their assets and liability statement at the end of March for the financial year, the bank holds it in its fiduciary capacity. The SBI has system of monitoring these statements to see if anybody has disproportionate assets as compared to his income. This information is not being uploaded on their website as a policy. The Apex Court in Girish Ram Chandra vs. Central Information Commission & Ors (SLP (C) No.27734 of 2012) has also observed that information like copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz, movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowings from Banks and other financial institutions are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 unless a larger public interest is involved.
6. After the hearing it came to the notice of the commission that the same matter has already been decided by this Commission in case No.CIC/DS/A/2011/004206/VS/02515 dated 19.3.2013. But this fact was brought to the notice of the Commission during the hearing either by the appellant or by the respondents. The Commission advises the respondents that prior to appearing before the Commission, they should also thoroughly check the facts of case and intimate to the Commission if the same matter had already been decided by the Commission earlier. The Commission also advises the appellant not to file the RTI applications seeking similar/identical information, repeatedly.
Citation: Shri Avinash Kumar v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/004057/MP