PIO had denied information regarding the bids for a tender by the bank for premises required claiming that the tendering process was not over; now the tendering process is over - CIC: provide the information keeping in view the RTI Act
1. The appellant, Shri Samir Kumar Nayak, has submitted RTI application dated 27 November 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Rourkela; seeking information regarding details of house owner’s bid/ offer received against advertisement regarding “Premises Required” by the respondent bank, through a total of 5 points.
2. Vide reply dated 20 December 2012, CPIO denied the information to the appellant on the ground that the requested information was incomplete at that time. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated NIL to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been wrongly denied the information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 24 January 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The appellant submitted that he had sought information regarding the tendering process with reference to the advertisement given by the public authority. The appellant also stated that the CPIO and the FAA both had not given the address of the next appellate authority and the stipulated time within which the appellant could make an appeal if he so desires.
5. The CPIO submitted that they had not provided any information to the appellant as the tendering process was not over. CICorder No. CIC/WB/C/2006/000176 dated 18.4.2006 also supports this view. The CPIO further submitted that now the tendering process is over and he would provide the information keeping the RTI Act, 2005 in view. He added that in future, he shall ensure that the name of the next appellate authority and the stipulated time within which the appeal is to be made will be mentioned invariably.
6. The CPIO will provide the information keeping the RTI Act, 2005 in view within 10 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
Citation: Shri Samir Kumar Nayak v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000839/MP