Appellant sought information regarding renewal of empanelment & delisting of his name from the SBI Bank Valuer’s panel - CIC: PIO to recheck if there is any fixed period for retention of applications of unempanelled valuers & provide the outcome
3 Oct, 2016ORDER
The Commission heard the 14 appeals filed by Shri Anil L. Korgaonkar on 23rd February, 2016. The appellant was represented by Smt. Shweta Anil Korgaonkar. She had filed written submissions of the appellant pertaining to all the fourteen appeals, which were taken on record. The respondents stated that the appellant was empanelled as a valuer by the SBI. The SBI, Eastern Express Branch had financed Vindhyavasini Group of Companies which become non-performing assets (NPA). During investigations it was revealed that Shri Korgaonkar at the time of sanction of loan had submitted inflated valuation of property/ assets, which were mortgaged to the SBI by Vindhyavasini Group of companies. The bank took cognizance of the professional misconduct of the valuer and removed the appellant from the bank’s panel on 21.11.2013. The bank had also taken up the matter with the Indian Bank Association (IBA) who had placed his name in the cautious list on its website. Subsequent to the above developments, the appellant had submitted numerous RTI applications to different administrative units of the bank. These applications were submitted to the CPIO, SBI, Eastern Express Highway Branch, Thane and were transferred to the CPIO, SBI, SAMB-II, Mumbai as the accounts regarding which the information was being sought had been declared NPAs and had been transferred to SAMB-II. The RTI applications were written by the appellant in a very confusing manner and it took several readings to understand and grasp the gist of what information he sought. The appellant sought each and every paper/ document related to each and every action in connection with these accounts for the period 2010 till date, with certified true photocopies of everything. He also desired physical inspection of all documents. The appellant had not established any public interest in the disclosure of all this information. Most of the information was held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and exempt u/s 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000673:
1. The appellant, Shri Anil L. Korgaonkar, submitted RTI application dated 05.09.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; stating that as per letter ref. no. EEH/REME1/2013- 14/000832 dated 20.12.2013 the SBI de-listed his name from SBI panel of Valuers with reference to the two valuation reports issued by the appellant in respect of property of Shri Vijay Rajendraprasad Gupta, Thane and sought action taken report on his letters dated 27.1.2014 and 27.5.2014 sent to Chairman, SBI, Mumbai; complete details/documents and correspondence from bank/ branch/Chairman/ Manager from January 2014 till date through two points.
1.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.10.2014 requested the appellant to remit Rs. 42/- towards the cost of photocopying charges consisting of 21 pages of information and on the appellant remitting the cost the CPIO vide letter 25.10.2014 sent 21 pages of information to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 25.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 11.12.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
1.3. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 17.03.2015 on the grounds that incomplete information had been provided to him by the respondents.
1.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant had sent two letters dated 27.1.2014 and 27.5.2014 to the Chairman and both these letters were forwarded from Chairman’s office to SBI, LHO Bandra and action taken on his letters was not provided by the respondents. The respondents stated that no action was warranted on appellant’s representations addressed to the Chairman, SBI, because the action to de-panel the appellant from SBI panel of valuers was taken by the Executive Committee of the Central Board (ECCB) of SBI. The appellant stated that copies of 21 documents provided were not certified by the respondents.
1.5 The Commission directs the CPIO to provide authenticated copies of the bank’s own documents to the appellant. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000670:
2. The appellant, Shri Anil L. Korgaonkar, submitted RTI application dated 01.01.205 before the DGM (Customer Service)/Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; seeking reply on his RTI application dated 5.9.2014 and the final reply received with documents from SHI, LHO vide letter dated 25.10.2014; action taken on his letter dated 27.5.2014 addressed to the Chairman of SBI; complete inward/ outward details and copy of letters received and forwarded by various departments from DGM, Chairman Secretariat; if no answer was sent or action was taken by authority concerned of his complaint till date, in case his complaint was destroyed wanted complete details with date, remarks of authority authorizing to destroy the record etc. through five points.
2.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.02.2015 intimated the appellant that his queries in application had been replied vide letter dated 25.10.2014 as acknowledged by the appellant in the same query and SBI did not have anything more to add and on remaining queries the appellant informed that no such information as held by them in material form. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 27.02.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 05.03.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
2.2. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 17.03.2015 on the grounds that respondents had not provided action taken on his representation dated 27.05.2014 addressed to the Chairman, SBI.
2.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant had sent letter dated 27.5.2014 to the Chairman and the respondent had not provided action taken by them on this letter. The respondents confirmed that no action was warranted on appellant’s letter dated 27.5.2014 and no action was taken in the matter by them.
2.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the appellant had been appropriately responded to by the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000671:
3. The appellant, Shri Anil L. Korgaonkar, submitted RTI application dated 01.01.2015 before the DGM (Customer Service)/Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; seeking copy of reply in response to his letter dated 27.1.2014 sent to SBI, MD/Chairman Secretariat; complete tracking details and copy of letters received and forwarded to various departments and complete details from SBI, Chairman/MD/AGM/DGM with remarks and action taken with reasons on his letter dated 27.1.2014 etc. through three points.
3.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.01.2015 intimated the appellant on all the three points that no such information was held by them in material form. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 07.02.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 21.02.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
3.2. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 17.03.2015 on the grounds that respondents had not provided the information sought.
3.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the respondents had provided the copy of the letter as sought.
3.4 Having heard the parties and going through the available record, the Commission holds that no intervention is required on the part of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000672:
4. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.12.2014 before the DGM (Customer Service)/Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai; seeking copy of his letter dated 27.5.2014 sent to Chairman, SBI along with annexure/documents attached; complete inward and outward details of the letter; if not traceable, details of FIR/complaint registered for missing record, if destroyed, details with date and remark of the authority to destroy the record through three points.
4.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 13.01.2015 intimated the appellant that no information was held by them. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 07.02.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 20.02.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
4.2. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 17.03.2015 on the grounds that respondents had not provided the information sought.
4.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the respondents had not provided the copy of letter as sought. The respondents offered to provide the copy of appellant’s letter dated 27.05.2014 addressed to the Chairman, SBI. The respondents added that they could only provide existing and available information, keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view and that they had clearly informed that no information was available with them on any of the points made in the RTI application.
4.4 In view of above submissions of the respondents, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide copy of appellant’s letter dated 27.05.2014 within two weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000809:
5. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 05.09.2014 before the DGM (TCC)/Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, LHO, Mumbai; seeking action taken on his letters dated 8.12.2009, 28.11.2011, 01.10.2013 in respect of renewal of his empanelment along with annexures, list of valuation done; complete set of documents of letter of empanelment on the SBI panel issued by Technical Consultancy Cell (TCC); complete set of documents of his letter of acceptance/confirmation of empanelment on the SBI bank panel; complete set of documents of letter of ‘delisting his name from the SBI Bank Valuer’s panel’ issued by TCC of SBI through four points.
5.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.09.2014 requested the appellant to remit Rs. 114/- towards the cost of photocopying charges of 57 pages. In the meantime the appellant filed an appeal on 25.10.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA) on the grounds of not having received any response from the CPIO. The FAA vide order dated 30.10.2014 observed that the CPIO’s letter 24.09.2014 sent through speed post was returned undelivered. The FAA directed the CPIO to furnish a copy of the said letter along with the envelope and requested the appellant to obtain the documents after making payment of the requisite fee.
5.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 27.03.2015 on the grounds of incomplete information having been provided.
5.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant had sought details of his three applications in respect of renewal of his empanelment, complete set of documents of letter of ‘delisting his name from the SBI Bank Valuer’s panel’ issued by TCC etc. These applications were submitted for re-empanelment of his name in the list of valuers, since the appellant was de-paneled on 23.11.2013. The CPIO provided documents relating to the year 2013 whereas the appellant sought details for 28.11.2011 and 28.12.2009 also. The respondents stated that these documents were not available in records and that the information sought by the applicant pertained to his applications submitted to the TCC, SBI, Mumbai for empanelment as a valuer on 9.12.2009, 3.12.2011 and 6.12.2014; The CPIO had furnished the records which were traceable and available. The records pertaining to the earlier years were not traceable. They stated that every two years applications were called for empanelment on the SBI’s panel of valuers. The appellant’s representative stated that the respondents are supposed to maintain records of empanelled applicants for two years.
5.4 Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to recheck if there is any fixed period for retention of applications of the unempanelled valuers and provide the outcome to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order.. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000801:
6. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 07.01.2015 before the DGM/Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, LHO, Mumbai; seeking action taken on his letters dated 28.11.2011, in respect of renewal of his empanelment; inward and outward details of the application; if not traceable complete details of the FIR/complaint registered and if destroyed complete details with date and remarks of the authority authorizing to destroy the record etc. through three points.
6.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.01.2015 intimated the appellant that no such record was available. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 07.02.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 21.02.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO. 6.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 27.03.2015 on the grounds that the respondents that denied the information due to non-availability of records.
6.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant had sought inward and outward details pertaining to appellant’s application dated 28.11.2011 regarding empanelment of valuers. The respondents denied the information on the grounds of non-availability of records. The respondents stated that they called for applications for valuers for empanelment of the SBI’s panel of valuers, every two years. Once the empanelment was done, the old applications of the previous years as well as the rejected applications were not preserved as it would be very voluminous and would require previous storage area. They confirmed that the previous records were not available.
6.4 The Commission directs the CPIO to check the period of retention prescribed or otherwise for those applications and intimate the outcome to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of the Commission’s decision. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000802 & CIC/MP/A/2015/000803:
7. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 05.09.2014 RM(TCC)Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, LHO, Mumbai; seeking action taken on his letters dated 27.05.2014, and sought details/documents relating to any one or more show cause notice issued to the appellant asking clarification for any of the valuation report submitted by him; correspondence relating to letter sent by him to SBI before the SBI Committee asking clarification for any of the valuation report submitted by him etc. through three points.
7.1. The CPIO, SBI, LHO, Mumbai transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, SBI, Eastern Express Highway Branch, Mumbai. The CPIO, SBI, Eastern Express Highway, Thane Branch vide letter dated 08.10.2014 requested the appellant to remit Rs. 18/- towards the cost of photocopying charges consisting of 9 pages. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 25.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 02.12.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
7.2. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.12.2014 AGM/Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, LHO, Mumbai in sequel to RTI application dated 5.09.2014 seeking action taken on his letter dated 27.05.2014 and was informed that no such information available on record; and sought to know the complete details of inward and outward of the said letter with remarks of the officials on his letter; if the said letter was not traceable, sought details of the FIR/complaint registered by SBI; if destroyed complete details with remarks of the authority, authorizing to destroy the record etc. through three points.
7.3. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.01.2015 informed the appellant that no such information was available. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 07.02.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 20.02.2015 observed that the CPIO had stated that there was no information held with him regarding correspondence/action, if any, taken by Technical Consultancy Cell subsequent to receipt of the letter and that the CPIO had also stated that there was no information regarding FIR if any, filed in this regard nor there was any information regarding destruction of the said letter. The FAA held that the CPIO could not create information and had replied to the appellant as per available records.
7.4. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant two appeals to the Commission each dated 27.03.2015 on the grounds that the respondents had not provided action taken report on his letter dated 27.05.2014.
7.5. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the information sought by appellant had not been provided by the respondents. The respondents stated that the applicant had sought information regarding action taken by Technical Consultancy Cell and subsequent to receipt of the said letter dated 27.5.2014. The CPIO stated that there was no information held in the records of the SBI regarding correspondence/action, if any, taken by the Technical Consultancy Cell, subsequent to receipt of the said letter.
7.6 Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to let the Technical Consultancy Cell of SBI to recheck the records and provide the outcome to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. These appeals are disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000941:
8. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 05.09.2014 before the Regional Manager, SBI, Eastern Express Highway Branch, Thane seeking complete of information of loan approved and disbursed against properties of Rajput Mall Multiplex, Thane, M/s. Vindyavasini Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Nagar Haveli, M/s. Universal Premises & Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and property of Shri Vijay Rajendraprasad Gupta application submitted for loan, valuation reports obtained against each of the properties; clearance certificate against each properties; loan sanction letter etc. through four points.
8.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.09.2014 denied information under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d),(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 01.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
8.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 27.03.2015 on the grounds that the respondents that denied the information.
8.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the information was denied by the respondents u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The respondents stated that the information sought by the appellant was exempt u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which was held by them in its fiduciary capacity and any disclosure would harm the competitive position of the bank. Moreover, no larger public interest warranted divulging the information sought to the appellant. They added that the matter was with CBI and investigations were going on.
8.4 Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the information sought by the appellant related to third party and exempt under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000937:
9. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 05.09.2014 before the Regional Manager, SBI, Eastern Express Highway Branch, Thane seeking complete information of loan approved and disbursed against the properties of of Rajput Mall Multiplex, Thane, M/s. Vindya vasini Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Nagar Haveli, M/s. Universal Premises & Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vijay Rajendra prasad Gupta; notice given for recovery, possession taken of properties by the bank, auctioned and loan recovered; details; complete details regarding restructure of the loan etc.
9.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.09.2014 denied information under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d),(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 01.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
9.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 25.03.2015 on the grounds that the respondents that denied the information.
9.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the information was denied by the respondents u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The respondents stated that the information sought by the appellant was exempt u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it pertained to third party, was held by them in its fiduciary capacity and disclosure would harm the competitive position of the bank. Moreover, no larger public interest warranted to divulge the sought information to the appellant.
9.4 Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the information sought by the appellant related to third party and exempt under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in the
decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000935:
10. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.09.2014 before the Regional Manager, SBI, Eastern Express Highway Branch, Thane seeking complete of information of loan approved and disbursed against properties of Rajput Mall Multiplex, Thane, M/s. Vindyavasini Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Nagar Haveli, M/s. Universal Premises & Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vijay Rajendraprasad Gupta; and sought name and designation, complete address and telephone numbers of officers/ Manager/AGM/DGM who had authorized and considered the loan account for recovery or restructuring of this loan and balance loan sanctioned along with terms and conditions in respect of recovery/ settlement/ restructuring of the loan accounts etc. through three points.
10.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.09.2014 intimated the appellant that the loan sanctioned against the mortgage of the property had neither been re-structured nor any settlement made under “one time settlement” scheme; the names and designations of officers who dealt with the matter was not available as SBI, SAMB were the recovery branch of the loan in question. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 01.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2014 upheld the reply of the CPIO on point 1 that the information sought was not available with the SBI, SAMB and on remaining points held that information sought was not quite clear i.e. ‘complete details’ and therefore could not be given. The FAA, however, directed the CPIO to provide specific information viz. current designation, branch name, branch address and telephone number of the SBI branch, its present address from where the retired employee was drawing pension. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.12.2014 complied with the directions of the FAA.
10.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 25.03.2015 on the grounds of incomplete information having been provided.
10.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that in compliance with the directions of the FAA, the CPIO provided names and addresses of the officials concerned. The residential addresses of retired officials was exempt from disclosure 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, as personal information, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The appellant’s representative stated that the names and addresses of the officers had been provided by the respondents.
10.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and upholds their decision. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000933:
11. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.09.2014 before the Regional Manager, SBI, Eastern Express Highway Branch, Thane seeking complete of information of loan approved and disbursed against properties of Rajput Mall Multiplex, Thane, M/s. Vindyavasini Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Nagar Haveli, M/s. Universal Premises & Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vijay Rajendraprasad Gupta; and details of the authorities within SBI over and above SBI Regulatory Bodies for organizations and for the independent Government Bodies such as Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Codes and Standards Board of India, IBA, RBI under whose rules and regulations/ guidelines the SBI operated; names of all authorities on all levels with details such as name of the authorized person, designation, organization name etc. through two points.
11.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.09.2014 informed the appellant that the complete details were available in the SBI’s website in response to point 1; in response to point 2 informed the appellant that the details were not available in the Recovery Branch of SBI. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 01.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
11.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 25.03.2015 on the grounds of having been provided with false and misleading information.
11.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant did not want to pursue the matter and the same may be treated as withdrawn.
11.4 In view of above submissions of the appellant, the instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000934:
12. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.09.2014 before the Regional Manager, SBI, Eastern Express Highway Branch, Thane stating that SBI informed that his name had been de-listed from the SBI panel of valuers with reference to two valuation reports issued by him to a private person and SBI taken on record for loan disbursement to M/s. Universal Premises & Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vijay Rajendra Prasad Gupta and sought details in respect of the name of the officers/manager/AGM/DGM of the SBI Brach who at the time of sanctioning the loan against these properties, considered the two valuation reports etc. through two points.
12.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.12.2014 provided the names, designation of the officers who dealt with the matter. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 01.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
12.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 25.03.2015 on the grounds of having been provided with false and misleading information.
12.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant did not want to pursue the matter and the same may be treated as withdrawn.
12.4 In view of above submissions of the appellant, the instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000936:
13. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.09.2014 before the Regional Manager, SBI, Eastern Express Highway Branch, Thane seeking complete details in respect of loan approved/disbursed against the properties of Rajput Mall Multiplex, Thane, Vindyavasini Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Nagar Haveli, M/s. Universal Premises and Textiles Pvt. Ltd; details of all the authorities at all levels of SBI who had considered the application and all documents related to the said loan applications and put their remarks; if retired or resigned from SBI, their present address, where they were getting pension and their mobile number etc. through four points.
13.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.09.2014 provided the names, designation of the officers who dealt with the matter on point 1; on point 2 and 3 the CPIO stated that as SBI SAMB was the recovery branch and they did not have the required information and information on point 4 was denied u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and (j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 01.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
13.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 25.03.2015 on the grounds of having been provided with false and misleading information.
13.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant did not want to pursue the matter and the same may be treated as withdrawn. 13.4 In view of above submissions of the appellant, the instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay held that “the right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. … Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a pubic authorities prioritizing ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”
15. The Commission advises the appellant to use the right available under the RTI Act with responsibility in future so as not to overburden the public authority and to enable it to use its time and resources efficiently.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Anil L. Korgaonkar v. State Bank of India (SAMB) in Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000670, CIC/MP/A/2015/000671, CIC/MP/A/2015/000672, CIC/MP/A/2015/000673, CIC/MP/A/2015/000801, CIC/MP/A/2015/000802, CIC/MP/A/2015/000803, CIC/MP/A/2015/000809, CIC/MP/A/2015/000933, CIC/MP/A/2015/000934, CIC/MP/A/2015/000935, CIC/MP/A/2015/000936, CIC/MP/C/2015/000937, CIC/MP/A/2015/000941