We have filled six applications to the following authorities to get information under Right to Information Act 2005.
Concerned Department: SBI, Raila Branch, Distt. Bhilwara & Bais (22) Godam, Jaipur
Particulars of information required: Ref: - Loan
Account No’s. (i) 30790086642 (TL Account); (ii) 30790105601 (TL
Account) and (iii) 30790238803 (CC Limit) M/s Rosebay Agro Farms Pvt.
Ltd. from Raila, Distt. Bhilwara Branch.
i. Details of information required:
(1) Vetting
Report of Smt. Sabiha Akhatar, Rural Business Group, L.H.O. New Delhi
(conducted in Nov, Dec, 2009) pertaining to the loan
application/proposals filed by M/s Rosebay Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. 4,
Vishnu Path, Satya Vihar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015, with reference to
the captioned loan accounts of the applicant company (The loan
application/proposals were submitted at Bias Godown, SBI, Branch, Jaipur
Raj).
(2) Observation of Shri D.B. Siwach, Chief Manager, Agriculture Rural Business Group, L.H.O. New Delhi on the Vetting
Report of Smt. Sabiha Akhatar, Rural Business Group, L.H.O. New Delhi
(conducted in Nov, Dec, 2009) pertaining to the loan
application/proposals of M/s Rosebay Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. 4, Vishnu
Path, Satya Vihar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015 with reference to the
captioned loan accounts of the applicant company (The loan
application/proposals were submitted at Bias Godown, SBI, Branch, Jaipur
Raj).
(3) All
recommendations and internal communications of the Bank on the vetting
report of Smt Sabiha Akhatar, Rural Business Group, L.H.O. New Delhi
(conducted in Nov, Dec, 2009) pertaining to the loan
application/proposals of M/s Rosebay Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. 4, Vishnu
Path, Satya Vihar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015 with reference to the
captioned loan accounts of the applicant company (The loan
application/proposals were submitted at Bias Godown, SBI, Branch, Jaipur
Raj).
(4) Vetting
report undertaken in March 2010 by the vetting officer appointed from
SBI Kota, Rajasthan subsequent to the vetting report of Smt. Sabiha
Akhatar, Rural Business Group, L.H.O. New Delhi (conducted in Nov, Dec,
2009) pertaining to the loan application/proposals of M/s Rosebay Agro
Farms Pvt. Ltd. 4, Vishnu Path, Satya Vihar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015
with reference to the captioned loan accounts of the applicant company
(The loan application/proposals were submitted at Bias Godown, SBI,
Branch, Jaipur Raj).
(5) Report/observation/sanction/recommendations
etc. Submitted in March April 2009 by Shri S.C. Verma, C.M.
Agriculture, Rural Business Group, and L.H.O. New Delhi pertaining to
his on the spot observation and verification of the Dairy Project, at
Raila of M/s Rosebay Agro Farms
Pvt. Ltd. from Raila, Distt. Bhilwara Branch with reference to the
captioned loan accounts of the applicant company.
(6) Examination
of the entire file pertaining to the Loan A/c No’s. (i) 30790086642 (TL
Account); (ii) 30790105601 (TL Account) and (iii) 30790238803 (CC
Limit) M/s Rosebay Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. from Raila, Distt. Bhilwara
Branch
ii. Period for which information asked for : March-2009 to April 2010
Regional Manager,
Information & Public Relation,
State Bank of India, Region-II,
Nehru Palace, Tonk Road,
Jaipur-302015.
1st time we applied for the information we require from here.
S.No.
|
Date
|
Particulars
| ||
1
|
17-Apr-2012
|
06 Nos. of Applications to RTI SBI R-II Jaipur ( Regarding Photo Copy of Documents )
| ||
&
S.No.
|
Date
|
Particulars
| ||
1
|
21-Apr-2012
|
Letter from SBI R-II Jaipur ( Reply of RTI dated 17 -04-2012, 6 Nos. of Applications))
| ||
We
have applied here because earlier our Range was II in Jaipur, recently
SBI restructured the Ranges & created new range III in Udaipur. Some
of our documents / information are still lying in Jaipur moreover 22 Godown Branch is still in range II but they don’t care & making us football to Udaipur.
2. Regional Manager,
Information & Public Relation,
State Bank of India,
Regional Business Office, Region-III,
65, Hitawala Complex,
ShikshaBhawan Circle,
SwaroopSagar Road,
Udaipur-313001.
1st time we applied for the information we require from here.
S.No.
|
Date
|
particulars
| |
1
|
17-Apr-2012
|
06 Nos. of Applications to RTI SBI R-III Udaipur ( Regarding Photo Copy of Documents )
|
&
S.No.
|
Date
|
particulars
| |
1
|
3-May-2012
|
Letter from SBI R-III Udaipur ( Reply of RTI dated 17 -04-2012, 6 Nos. of Applications)
|
To
safeguard the culprits they declined to give information on the basis
that we are third party. Even I am director, guarantor & authorized
signatory in all documents with the bank.
3. State Bank of India,
Business & Operations Performance Monitoring Deptt.
G.M. (Network-3)
Secretarial Local Head Office,
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi- 11001
We have filled 1st appeal here with the hope of justice.
S.No.
|
Date
|
particulars
| |
1
|
6-Jun-2012
|
06 Nos. of Appeal to GM SBI Network-III New Delhi ( against Order dated 03-05-2012 SBI R-III Udaipur Regarding our RTI ,6 Nos. of Applications dated 17 -04-2012, )
|
&
S.No.
|
Date
|
particulars
| |
1
|
11-Jul-2012
|
Letter from GM SBI Network-III New Delhi ( Order against 06 Nos. of Appeal dated 06-06-2012 )
|
They
have shielded the misconduct of their subordinates & making
mockery. GM was the only authority for these systems to call all the
concerned files from every department & give us all information we
required.
4. The Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Marg,
Bhikaji Kama Place,
New Delhi
We have filled an appeal against the order of The GM III.
S.No.
|
Date
|
particulars
| |
1
|
11-Aug-2012
|
06 Nos. of Appeal to The Central Information Commission Delhi ( against order dated 11-07-2012 of GM SBI Network-III New Delhi )
|
5. Regional Manager,
Information & Public Relation,
State Bank of India,
Regional Business Office, Region-III,
65, Hitawala Complex,
Shiksha Bhawan Circle,
SwaroopSagar Road,
Udaipur-313001.
We again filled applications for seeking information 2nd time here.
S.No.
|
Date
|
particulars
| |
1
|
11-Jun-2012
|
06 Nos. of Applications to RTI SBI R-III Udaipur ( Regarding Photo Copy of Documents )
|
6. State Bank of India,
Business & Operations Performance Monitoring Deptt.
G.M. (Network-3)
Secretarial Local Head Office,
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi- 11001
S.No.
|
Date
|
particulars
| |
1
|
26-Jul-2012
|
06
Nos. of Appeal to GM SBI Network-III New Delhi (against violation of
the rights conferred by the Act within the statutory time limit of 30
days. Regarding our RTI ,6 Nos. of Applications dated 11 -06-2012 to SBI R-III Udaipur )
|
After suffering from all the problems and hurdles created by the vindictive Bank Officials I had no option but to file a final appeal to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi for the hope of justice.
1. That
Shri Suneel Dutt Goyal in the capacity of the Director of the Complaint
Company viz. M/s Rosebay Organic Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur filed six
applications all dated 17th April 2012 seeking information
referred therein, so as to enable them to assist this Hon’ble Chair to
deliver a judicious order in the matter. The said applications were
filed both in Region-2 and Region-3 of State Bank of India, located at
Jaipur and Udaipur, respectively. (Photo copies enclosed herewith as Annexure 30-A, 30-B, 30-C, 30-D, 30-E, and 30-F.) 73. That
the applications pertaining to Region-2, SBI, Jaipur was transferred to
Region-3 vide letter no. AOJ/R-2/202 dated 21.04.2012 (Photo copy
enclosed as Annexure 31.)
2. That subsequently all the six applications dated 17th April
2012 were rejected unlawfully and erroneously by the Region-3, SBI,
Udaipur, vide their order no. RBO/R-3/INSD/14/704 dated 03.05.2012,
illogically and irrationally observing that “the bank is under an
obligation to maintain secrecy of its customer’s affairs and is not
required to divulge the same to a third party which is held in a
fiduciary relationship involving commercial confidence”
(The Photo copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure 32),
3. That
in view of the fact that they are inclined upon to conceal information
from the Director of the Company who was also operating the accounts of
the Company, the documents pertaining to the Company’s account, is
self-revealing of its
illegality. Your good-self will appreciate that Director of a Company
has all the right to know any fact pertaining to the accounts of the
Company with the Bank.
4. That
aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 03/05/2012, appellant preferred
six appeals for the six applications dated 17/April/2012, before the
General Manager, State Bank of India, Network-III, L.H.O. New Delhi.
Photo copies of all the six applications is enclosed here with as
Annexure 39-a, 39-b, 39-c, 39-d, 39-e, 39-f respectively. In the said
appeals it was inter-alia submitted that
a) The
Learned information officer has seriously erred in failing to
appreciate that Director of a Company seeking for any information
pertaining to the Company’s account, by no edge of imagination be deemed
to be the third party. The stipulation pertaining to the same in the
impugned order is merely an eye wash. Factually it is an endeavor to hide and conceal the documents which are revealing of the misdeeds of the Bank and its employees.
b) That
the documents pertaining to the opening and execution of the loan
account with reference to which the information was sought for were
extended solely under the signature of the appellant’s. Thus the
respondent at this juncture cannot take the plea that he was not aware
of this vital fact. The action of the information officer was in-fact a
deliberate one.
c) Moreover
the nature of the information sought for, it is apparent that it can
even be extended to a third party under the scope and purview of the
‘Right to Information Act 2005’. The denial of our most deserved right
provided by the legislature, is criminal and may please be dealt with
accordingly.
d) The Act of the information officer is beyond doubt intended to obstruct and deprive the appellant of the information sought for. This is gross illegality and warranted to be checked by passing of deterrent order against the Learned Respondent.
5. That
the said appeals were disposed of by the General Manager, State Bank of
India, Network-III, L.H.O. New Delhi vide his order dated 11/07/2012
passed vide file on illegal grounds inter-alia observing that:-
“After
carefully examining the request made in the application and the reply
submitted by the CPIO it is observed that the CPIO has correctly
declined the information. Every Director can not obtain the information
regarding the company unless he is authorized by the Board of the
Company to do so. The Bank recognizes its customers by their signatures
on record of the Bank who is authorized to operate the account.
Appellant has now submitted a resolution with the appeal which he should
have submitted along with the application. Though it is difficult to
exactly pin point the information desired by the appellant, he may be
allowed to inspect the file of the company available at the Branch after
verification of the signatures on the resolution with the record of the
Bank, at mutually agreed time. Copies of the documents desired by him
may also be provided to him after obtaining the cost as per the RTI Act.
The process should be completed with in 15 working days from the
receipt of this order.”
Photo copy of order enclosed as Annexure-40
6. Aggrieved
by the aforesaid order dated 11/07/2012, appellant preferred six
appeals against the same, pertaining to the six original applications
dated 17th April
2012, before the Hon’ble Central Information Commission, August Kranti
Marg, Bhikaji Kawa Palea, New Delhi. Photo copies enclosed here with as Annexure 41(a),41(b), 41(c), 41(d), 41(e), & 41(f), and inter alia submitted that :-
a) That
the information sought for by the appellant was very specific and
categoric. The directions of the appellate authority to the subordinate
authority to allow the appellant to examine the file were merely an eye
wash. It would be apposite to
mention here that a number complaints filed by the appellant against
some of the local SBI officers are pending before various forums is
pending, for which these documents are required to assist those forums
for delivery of justice. Moreover it is a highlighted case well within the knowledge all over the SBI circle. The
learned appellate authority colluded to deprive the appellants of the
justice. The impugned order apparently suffers from the vice of
prejudice and malafide state of mind.
b) In the instant case the learned first appellate authority has committed a gross illegality and passed the impugned order without even reading the grounds of appeal. In
this connection your kind attention is invited to the Grounds-C of the
appeal made before the learned first appellate authority where-in it was
very categorically brought to his notice that, the documents pertaining
to the opening, execution and day to day working including the
withdrawals and deposits in the loan account with reference to which the
information was sought for, were extended and operated solely under the
signature of the appellant viz. Suneel Dutt Goyal. In these
circumstances the denial of information to him on the pretext of him
being a third party, is nothing but illegal and part and parcel of the
ongoing conspiracy against the aggrieved appellant.
c) On
the one hand he blindly and arrogantly fails to take note of the fact
that the appellant was the signing authority from the very onset in the
loan account under reference and on the other hand he deemed to have
denied the document sought for on the amazing pretext that, “The bank
recognizes its customers by their signatures on record of the bank who
are authorized to operate the account”. If
he would have bothered to have read grounds of appeal or would have
afforded a personal hearing to the appellant, he would have refrained
from making such an absurd comments.
d) It is evident that the first appellate authority along
with his subordinate has colluded to deprive the appellant of the
document sought for, very well knowing that, it will bring on surface
the misdeeds and malpractice in SBI. Thus when in compliance of his
directions to inspect the file, appellant contacted the person concern
i.e., Regional Manager Information & Public Relation, State Bank of
India, Udaipur, Rajasthan, he was ill-treated. His language was
altogether disgusting and unparliamentarily.
e) Orders
has been passed by the first appellate authority knowing that, firstly
its is practically impossible for the appellant without the cooperation
of the Bank to locate the department section, branch etc, of the Bank
where these documents are filed Secondly the officials at the local
level would not help and assist the appellant to trace and locate the
file where the said documents were placed in their Banking filing
system.
7. That the aforementioned appeals are pending before the Hon’ble Central Information Commissioner.
No comments:
Post a Comment