Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shankar Poddar vs Punjab National Bank on 16 July, 2025

                                   के ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं      ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/102605

Shankar Poddar                                                 ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO: Punjab National Bank,
Midnapore                                                ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 14.06.2023             FA       : 29.07.2023             SA     : 18.01.2024

CPIO : 24.07.2023            FAO : 18.09.2023                  Hearing : 14.07.2025


Date of Decision: 16.07.2025
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1. Please inform me the reason for which an amount of Rs. 236/- has been debited from my account being no. ******8413 (PNB, M/s Sai Complex, INDA, OT Road, Kharagpur-721305, IFSC Code: PUNBO168710) on 03-04-2023.

2. Please inform me on which date the recipient of the account payee has submitted the A/c payee cheque in her bank. Please also inform me the aforesaid A/c payee cheque details and name of Bank, address of the payee and her account number.

3. Please inform me as to the reason MOUSUMI BISWASORD mentioned vide cheque no. 887896 & 887897 in the Savings Passbook wherein no such name is mentioned in the aforesaid Cheques.

4. Please state me if any cheque submitted by the payee to his/her Bank after validity of the same from the date of issue in that event can a Bank authority may impose a penalty in terms of cost to the sender.

If so, please supply me the relevant copy of said rule for such a penalty.

5. Please inform me can a Bank authority receive the invalid cheque (ie after three months from the date of issue) from the payee. .....etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. Charges was deducted by system due to return of Cheque no 887895 & 887894 under reason No 31(Instrument outdated /Stale).

2. We do not have data regarding cheque deposited date at her bank, However the cheque received at our clearing centre through CTS platform vide our inward clearing on 03.04.2023 as presented by SBI Narkeldanga. Details of payee not available with us.

3. All these cheques issued in favour of "Mousumi Podder Nee Biswas

4. Payee has liberty to deposit the cheque as per his/her prerogative and bank will consider it if cheque in question is/are in order and valid, otherwise return the same with specifying the reason of reason of return and attributable charges would be deducted as per norms of Bank/RBL

5. Payee has liberty to deposit the cheque as per his/her prerogative and bank will consider it if cheque in question is/are in order and valid, otherwise return the same with specifying the reason of reason of return, etc."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.01.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pramod Kumar, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent, while defending their case, reaffirmed their earlier response dated 24.07.2023 and submitted that all relevant available information had been furnished to the appellant. Moreover, in second appeal, the appellant has sought some clarification based on the above said reply of the CPIO.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the instant RTI Application does not seek information as per the definition of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, rather the appellant has sought reasons and clarification and yet the CPIO has provided a clarification in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Page 3 of 5 The observations passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) may be relied upon:

"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."

8. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 16.07.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO, Punjab National Bank, RTI Cell, Circle Office:

Kharagpur, Bidhannagar East -

1, East Avenue, Midnapore, West Bengal - 721101 Page 4 of 5 2 Shankar Poddar Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)