Friday, 29 January 2016

Complaint under RTI Act 2005 against State Bank of India for non-furnishing of information of public interest

Complaint under RTI Act 2005 against State Bank of India for non-furnishing of information of public interest

Dear readers,

During my previous posts I have brought out details of my RTI applications, first appeal and 2nd appeal as well as respective orders to SBI to disclose the information. However, State Bank of India still preferred not to disclose the information that is well evident from the previous article. Non-disclosure of the information or rather hiding the information could lead to believe that State Bank of India is adapting to unethical business practices generating such unfair revenue of more than Rs. 400 crores in a year. here is repoduction of my complaint to Central Information Commission. However some of the points are also directed to CIC leading to feel RTI Act possibly is a Myth. I am still in a dilemma as to whether RTI Act 2005 is a myth or reality. May be the readers help me with their valueable views in finding out an answer to the doubt.

"Sub: Information under RTI Act 2005 in respect of SMS Alert services by State Bank of India

Some of the facts are:
1.    Date of 2nd appeal: 20/02/2015
2.    Date of hearing: 27/10/2015
3.    Date of Decision: 26/11/2016
4.    Date of dispatch of order (as per records of Postal Department): 23/12/2015

As stated above, the hearing of the 2nd appeal was held before Information Commissioner on 27/10/2015. However the decision taken by Information Commissioner on 26/11/2015 after a period of 30 days and the order was despatched on 23/12/2015 (after about 60 days of the hearing). Despite all the relevant points taken up by the appellant during the hearing, the order seems to be missing with crucial points of information being subject matter of all documents including RTI application, First Appeal and 2nd Appeal. The shocking part is the Public Authority i.e State Bank of India has not supplied the information to even those 3 points listed in the order of Commission. The appellant after spending time, money and energy is back to the same position as of 01/10/2014, the date of RTI application. The CPIO. State Bank of India has been repeating the content without furnishing the documents despite being order of FAA and 2nd AA.

Some of the points relevant to the RTI application are:
1.    The PSU Bank is alleged to be adapting an unethical business in violation of RBI and Ministry of Finance directives.
2.    The unethical business amounts to more than Rs. 300 crores in a year. The total accumulated business of such nature is expected to be Rs. 700 crores and is in the nature of cheating the account holders. The issue is therefore of public interest.
3.    Point No. 1 (i) sought in explicit manner the copy of the file notings of my RTI application dtd. 28/08/2014. (CPIO has provided false information intentionally in the previous RTI application dtd 28/08/2014 and hence probably is hiding the file notings to suppress the wrong doings of the CPIO of denial/ furnishing of false information. Once the file notings are released, the false information being supplied by CPIO gets revealed and substantiated).
4.    Point No. 1 (viii) sought copies of internal note sheets in regards to implementation of said RBI order.
5.    Point No. 1(ix) sought copies of internal note sheet for movement of order of Ministry of Finance as stated in the RTI application.
6.    Point No. 1 (x) and (xi) sought information on the rates and charges paid by the State Bank of India for SMS.
7.    All the above points as well as other points were discussed during the hearing with a request that the information may be supplied in an explicit manner including supply of the documents. Point No. 4 of the stated Commission order brings out the fact that “The appellant reiterated his request for seeking information as specifically sought in his RTI application”. The hearing was attended by the Branch Manager (not a CPIO) who was totally unaware of the issue and was silent. The CPIO have failed to provide the documents despite FAAs orders as stated in my 2nd appeal substantiated with the relevant documents/orders. The State Bank of India is hiding the information as unethical business is going on in the public authority for last more than two years. The business is affecting the account holders as the quantum of such unethical business is already stated in the foregoing paras. The account holders are being debited with the charges for the services despite not being availed off. Such debiting of the amount from account holder’s account amounts to cheating.
8.    CPIO is making all out efforts in suppressing the release of documents and non-supply of the information and is leading to suppress the unethical business being adapted by SBI. In addition to the suppression of the unethical business practices, the CPIO is also disrespecting the constitutional enacted RTI Act by not supplying the information even for those points which are clearly directed by FAAs and 2nd AA. It is giving a feeling to the beneficiary that RTI Act is not a reality but a Myth.
9.    Point No. (b) of concluding paragraph on page No. 5/6 of my 2nd appeal dtd. 20/02 2015 states an expenditure of Rs. 3,000/- appox has been incurred which has been compelled onto me by avoidable documentation, legal fee and other expenditure had the information be provided by the public authority.
10. I request Hon’ble Commission to issue directives to provide the explicit information and initiate penal action against the concerned CPIOs for suppressing the information of public interest intentionally with ulterior motives and the financial relief to the appellant as stated above

In view of foregoing derivatives and the facts as stated earlier, I am of the firm view that CPIO has disrespected constitutionally enacted RTI Act 2005 intentionally, malafidellay, suppressing the corrupt practices ignoring orders of FAA and 2nd AA. To keep the sanctity of the constitution and respecting the constitutionally enacted Act, strict action need to be taken against CPIO and I am of the firm view of need of disclosure of information/documents, penalising as per provisions of RTI Act in addition to the compensation for mental agony, incidental expenditures and financial losses as sought by me"


No comments:

Post a Comment