Information regarding the number, names, addresses etc. in respect of dormant accounts in State Bank of India was sought – CIC: PIO, SBI to look into the matter & provide the correct position regarding penalty being charged for renewal of accounts
1. The appellant Shri Virender Pal Gupta, submitted RTI application dated 19.08.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai seeking information regarding the number, names, addresses etc. in respect of dormant accounts in State Bank of India from 1.1.2008 to 20.8.2013, whether nominees of the said accounts informed, any public notice published in daily newspapers about closed accounts, penalty if any charged for renewal of dormant accounts etc. through seven points.
2. The CPIO, RBI vide letter dated 24.09.2013 provided information on point no. 6 pertaining on charging of penalty for renewal of closed accounts and remaining queries were transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, State Bank of India, Mumbai for providing information directly to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 08.10.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA), RBI. The FAA, RBI vide order dated 14.11.2013 concurred with the reply of the CPIO. The CPIO, SBI vide letter dated 7.10.2013 denied information on point 1 and 4 under the provisions of Section 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; and (j) of the RTI Act and on remaining points provided a point-wise response to the appellant.
3. Thereafter the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he sought information relating to the number of accounts were closed by SBI and how much amount is lying in the said accounts. He further added that the SBI, Bavana and Naharpur Branches had renewed his closed account after charging penalty, whereas the CPIO, SBI informed that there is no provision of renewal of closed accounts. The respondents from RBI stated that the most of the queries were related to the SBI, hence appellant’s RTI application had been transferred to the CPIO, SBI and they had duly replied on point 6 to the appellant relating to relevant circulars of the RBI.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO, SBI to look into the matter and provide the correct position on the information sought regarding penalty being charged for renewal of accounts to the appellant under intimation to the Commission within ten days of receipt of this order. The decision of CPIO, SBI on points 1 and 4 is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Virender Pal Gupta v. Reserve Bank of India/ State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001371