Central Information Commission
Shri Rajiv Daiya vs Uco Bank on 29 October, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00589 & 671-SM
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 29 October 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Rajiv Daiya
S/o. Shri Mangtu Ramji,
Rajmata Ji Ka Mohra,
Nr. Fateh Sagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, UCO Bank,
Zonal Office, G - 79,
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Smt. Tulika Ghosh, Law Officer,
(ii) Shri Dilip Singh, PIO
2. We had decided the second appeal of the Appellant in our order dated January 19, 2009. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had, in the order dated May 21, 2009 in the WP(C) 9060 & 9065/2009, had set aside our order and had remitted back the matter to us to decide the same afresh after giving hearing to the parties. Following this direction, we had, in the presence of both the parties and with the express consent of the Appellant, fixed the case for hearing on September 22, 2009. On that date, the Appellant could not be present. Later, we had received a communication from him requesting that the hearing in the matter be fixed for the next date.
3. We had heard this case last on September 22, 2009. Since the Appellant was not present on that date, we had adjourned the hearing. The Appellant had been asked to be present in today's hearing failing which, we had said, we would hear the case even in his absence. Today also, the Appellant was not present nor have we received any communication from him explaining why he would not to be present. The Respondents were CIC/PB/A/2008/00589 & 671-SM present just as they were present on the previous date of hearing. We decided to go ahead with the hearing of the case even in the absence of the Appellant.
4. In his letter dated November 26, 2007, the Appellant had sought a certified copy of the enquiry report based on which the Regional Manager, Jodhpur had reported to the Jilla Jan Abhav Abhiyog evam Satarkata Samiti in his letter dated July 27, 2001. Beginning with the first reply of the CPIO dated January 10, 2008, the Respondents have consistently held that no such enquiry report was available in their records and, therefore, they were not in a position to provide to the Appellant a copy of such a report. In all their submissions before the CIC, the Respondents have pleaded that they had searched their records but could never find any enquiry report in the matter. In their latest written comments furnished to us in their letter dated October 28, 2009, the General Manager and the Appellate Authority has again reiterated that no such report was available in the records. Even though in the July 27, 2001 letter addressed to the Officer In- Charge(Vigilance), Additional District Collector(Adm), the Regional Manager of the Bank had referred to a detailed enquiry into the matter, it is being consistently pleaded that no enquiry report is available. It is not for us to speculate why no such enquiry report exists. Even if it is assumed, as argued by the Appellant, that such an enquiry report existed sometime, both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority claim this report not to be available in their records at present. In the scheme of the hearing of a second appeal like the present one, there is no means by which the Commission can compel the CPIO to produce a document when the authorities claim it not being available with them.
5. Section 2 (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act defines the "right to information" as "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority". Thus, the CPIO is expected to provide such information only if it is held by the Public Authority or under its control. If the desired information is not available in the records of the Public Authority, the CPIO cannot invent it. In this case, CIC/PB/A/2008/00589 & 671-SM we have carefully examined the contents of all the submissions made by both the parties. Since the desired information, namely, the copy of a certain enquiry report is being claimed not to be available in the records of the Bank, we are afraid, we cannot compel the CPIO to provide it to the Appellant. However, we direct the CPIO to mount another search for this report in all their records and to inform the Appellant once again within 10 working days from the receipt of this order, about the status of the availability of the said enquiry report in the form of a sworn affidavit to allay the fears of the Appellant about the existence or otherwise of this document. If the report is traced during such search, a certified copy of it shall be sent to the Appellant within the same period.
6. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/PB/A/2008/00589 & 671-SM