CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
…..
F.No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001613AT
Dated, the 10th September, 2010.
Appellant : Shri P.I. Oza
Respondents: State Bank of India, Mumbai
This matter came up for hearing on 08.09.2010 pursuant to Commission's
notice dated 27.07.2010. Appellant was absent, while the respondents
were represented by Shri J. Venugopal, AGM (Law) and Shri M.K. Dubey,
AGM (RTI).
2. Appellant, through his RTI application dated 04.05.2009, requested
the following items of information:
" 1. Please furnish details of investments of corpus fund of Rs.17.04
crores of SBS REMBS Scheme as on 13.08.08, 31.03.09 & 30.04.09, i.e.
details such as Name of Securities,
where invested, date of investments of yield thereof.
2. Please furnish details of investment of Rs.72/ crores of
P.F.surplus Account of SBS as on 13.08.08, 31.03.09 and 30.04.09.
Details such as name of securities, date of
investments where invested, yield thereof, etc."
3. CPIO, through a communication dated 02.06.2009, declined to
disclose this information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of
the RTI Act. Appellate Authority's order dated 25.06.2009 upheld
CPIO's decision.
4. Appellant, who has now challenged that order in second appeal, has
stated that he was an employee of the former State Bank of Saurashtra,
which has now been merged with the State Bank of India (SBI). He was a
beneficiary of the SBS REMBS Scheme, which was a medical benefit
scheme for retired employees of the Bank, which is now being managed
by SBI. He had sought the information on the investments made under
the Scheme.
5. Appellant had stated that he was also a member of the SBS Provident
Fund and was entitled to know as to how the fund was being managed.
6. I notice that the respondents have routinely decided not to
disclose the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act treating
it as a matter of their own commercial confidence without factoring in
the decision making the appellant's own status as a contributor to the
above mentioned funds. In my view, he is entitled to receive clear and
direct replies to his queries, which has been wrongly denied by
quoting the exemption Section 8(1)(d). A contributor to a fund has the
right to know whether the managers are investing the funds to optimize
the benefit to
the contributors. It is odd that rather than acknowledge the
contributor's right to be apprised of the investment pattern of the
funds collected from him and similar others, the Bank considers it its
right not to share any information about the manner of the investment
of these funds. It is
surprising that they have not yet setup any system of communicating
the investment details with those who had a direct interest in the
management of the funds, i.e. the contributors.
7. This matter needs to be carefully examined in the light of the
observations above and the instructions of the Bank and the market
regulators about transparency in these investments.
8. I would expect serious reflection by the senior officers of the
State Bank of India so that a well informed position emerges about
transparency in these investments and transmission of the relevant
information to investors.
9. Matter is accordingly remitted back to the Appellate Authority and
Chief General Manager (Banking Operations), Mumbai with the direction
that he will examine this matter denovo
after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard in person and
make a decision within four weeks.
10. Matter is accordingly disposed of.
11. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
No comments:
Post a Comment