A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Appellant sought information regarding the date on which a postal order has been encashed by Jhansi Development Authority - PIO: Information is not available - CIC: Reply does not contain any reference to the record retention policy; Provide revised reply

CIC took grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then PIO as well as his failure to comply with the FAA’s order; PIO to send a proper written explanation for the above omission and in doing so, the onus of omission lies with the PIO

Appellant: Information provided by the Respondent is case specific; the general rules under which a PLI proposal can be rejected were not provided - CIC enquired and directed the Respondent to re-examine and furnish the general P.O.I.F. rules

Appellant: Though Rajubhai inherited a house, he misrepresented his eligibility to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy; Records and actions taken sought - NHB: No formal complaint lodged - CIC: No intervention required in the matter

CIC: Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or CC or PC or Commissioner; It would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act

PIO provided a cyclostyled response to applicant seeking information about distance Mode at Private Universities - CIC: Conduct of PIO indicates a sheer disregard for the mandate of the RTI Act; Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed for deemed refusal

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

Transparency is a pathway to better Elections and stronger Democracy

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

SBI replied after a lapse of four months - CIC: CPIO clearly failed to adhere to the stipulations contained in the RTI Act - CIC directed to send a proper written explanation for it within 15 days failing which action may be initiated u/s Section 20(1)

14 Nov, 2024

O R D E R

Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/626312

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Please state whether this PAN has been used to open an account for the rightful owner or has it been used to open a similarly named unregistered entity or proprietorship.

(ii) Was the KYC details of all the partners were ever sought or provided? As it is mandatory as per your own bank’s guidelines to get all the partner/owner details in case of partnership firm.

(iii) Please state whether my name is included in the partners list.

1.2. Aggrieved with the non-response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 10.04.2023. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

1.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals dated 30.05.2023. The CPIO replied on 07.07.2023 through online portal that the registered partnership firm Bijaya restaurant was not having any account with them.

Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/626306

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Please state whether the account in question has been opened with a registration certificate of the Partnership Firm issued by the registrar of firms as the PAN belongs to a registered partnership firm.

(ii) Before the account was opened whether a proper check was made to verify whether the partnership was indeed a registered partnership firm or has it lapsed with the registrar of firms.

(iii) After account opening when was the last time KYC details were sought from the person who opened the account.

(iv) If KYC details were recently sough for this account, was its authenticity e-verified, i.e. was any effort made to find out whether the partnership firm is still registered with the designated authority.

(v) Was the KYC details of all the partners were ever sought or provided? As it is mandatory as per your own bank’s guidelines to get all the partner/owner details in case of partnership firm.

(vi) Please state whether my name is included in the partners list, I used to be known as S Kalyani prior to my marriage.

2.1. Aggrieved with the non-response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeals on 10.04.2023. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

2.2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals dated 30.05.2023. The CPIO replied on 07.07.2023 through online portal and the same is reproduced as under:

(v) Was the KYC details of all the partners were ever sought or provided? As it is mandatory as per your own bank’s guidelines to get all the partner/owner details in case of partnership firm.

(vi) Please state whether my name is included in the partners list, I used to be known as S Kalyani prior to my marriage.

2.1. Aggrieved with the non-response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeals on 10.04.2023. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

“1. No, the account was opened based on the registration certificate from Central Board of Excise and Customs, Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1973, GST Number and KYC of Managing Partner Mr. Venugopal.

2. Yes, the account has been opened with the valid KYC documents of the registered partnership firm Hotel Ajanta.

• Registration certificate from CBEC

• Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1973

• GST number

• KYC of Managing Partner Mr. Venugopal

3. & 4. No such records available

5. No, as per the Partnership Deed point no. 7, “The bank accounts of the firm shall be operated by Managing Partner Mr. Venugopal or Ms. Sulochana who shall be entitled to operate the bank accounts.” As per the Partnership Deed, Mr. Venugopal has every right to open and operate the bank accounts on behalf of the registered partnership firm Hotel Ajanta.”

Hearing Proceedings:

3. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Madhan S.,

Regional Manager and CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

4. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that it was not the case of non-response, as claimed by the appellant in his second appeal. Besides, the RTI applications were filed through online portal, therefore, the applications were disposed of on the online portal. The copies of the said online replies have been enclosed along with their latest written submissions dated 24.09.2024.

5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied on 07.07.2023 after a lapse of over four months. In view of this, & CPIO in having clearly failed to adhere to the stipulations contained in the RTI Act, is now directed to send a proper written explanation to the Commission for not responding to the instant RTI Application(s) within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. The said written explanation shall reach the bench within 15 days of the date of receipt of this order, failing which, adverse action may be initiated against him under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act. However, the replies given by the respondent on 07.07.2023 are found appropriate and no action is warranted in terms of merits of the case. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Chandrasekaran Kalyani v. State Bank of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/626312+ /626306; Date of Decision: 04.10.2024

SBI replied after a lapse of four months - CIC: CPIO clearly failed to adhere to the stipulations contained in the RTI Act - CIC directed to send a proper written explanation for it within 15 days failing which action may be initiated u/s Section 20(1)

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.