Central Information Commission
Mohd Anwar vs State Bank Of India on 26 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/155707
Mohd Anwar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/O THE CPIO & ASSISTANT
GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF
INDIA MAIN BRANCH, 4 CONVENT
ROAD, DEHRADUN- 248001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/09/2023
Date of Decision : 22/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 14/10/2022
First appeal filed on : 16/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 18/10/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/11/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"It is to bring into your kind notice that my son Imran Parvez had a PPF A/c No. 10901856667 with SBI Main Branch, Dehradun since September 2006.Previously 1 Mrs. Mukhtiar Bano (his mother & my wife) was the nominee but after his marriage we changed the nomination in favor of his wife Seemi Siddiqui. The following are the details for your reference and information required by me. I hope you will be considerate enough to provide me with a convincing reply considering a senior citizen who is undergoing tremendous pain of losing his young son and fighting for justice.
1(a) Case summary of imran's (Nominator) murder by Seemi Siddiqui -- wife (Nominee) is enclosed.
(b) FIR of murder (No. 1667/15) registered under Sec 302 IPC.
(c) Medical Board of PGIMER Chandigarh was Constituted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which upheld our apprehension on cause of Imaran's death as ASPHYXIA , an unnatural death under sedation through smothering and categorically ruled out natural death See PGI opinion report.
2. Informed SBI. Main Branch Dehradun regarding Imran's murder by the wife Seemi and submitted all the relevant documents The said PPF amount was marked as 'Disputed Money'.
3.Seemi Siddiqui's succession case of 2015 was DISMISSED with fine by Rohini Court on 29/912016.
4.In response to seemi's subsequent succession case of April 2019 (after 5 years) still pending in the court. Hon'ble court directed us to file the details of the LRs of the deceased on filling of PF and to the concerned bank for filing tentative dues amount and nomination details of the deceased.
5 (i) Instead of providing the desired details as above to the Hon'ble court for further action in the matter Seemi very cleverly submitted the PPF claim settlement to SBI, Main Branch. Dehradun and personally visited in September 2019
(ii) Bank informed me and I too being the legal heir and bonafide beneficiary filed the counter rival claim along with copies of the documents and pleaded to wait for 28 days for likely directions/order by Hon'ble Court on next hearing on 26/02/2020.
2iii) Failed to understand Bank's carry in paying total PPF amount to Seemi lying unclaimed with U e Bark for he la 56 months i e since May 2015. Was there some pressure or something else?
(iv) In unilateral manner, the bank id total PPF amount of Rs 4,36,234/- on 03/02/2022 to Seemi Siddiqui
6. In information under RTI, bank ii formed me of the payment of total amount to Seemi Siddiqui and later advised ME as legal heirs to recover payment from the nominee Seemi Siddiqui)
(ii) As per bank advice to receive payment from the nominee. I approached the bank for necessary / relevant information under RTI Act Viz. Queries pertaining to points No 1 of the Documents enclosed with the settlement form.
(iii) Information provided through reply dated 28/7/2021.
7. Sorry to point out that print out of the copies of ID and address proof (point No. 213 of reply) supplied wet of poor quality not being readable. However legible copies were provided subsequently.
8 To provide a copy of the passbook (013F) of the deceased (in original) see ANN III A S No 1617 of documents enclosed.
(I) REPLY POINT 1. At the time of settlement Smt. Seemi submitted the copy FIR of the lost passbook. However, no copy of the said FIR of lost passbook has been provided as yet I would like to add that right from the opening of PPF account to last date deposit, all passbooks are here with us in original at Dehradun (Imran) hometown and permanent address) FIR of passbook being lost is nothing but fraud and fake.
(II) In subsequent RTI reply to the bank instead of supplying the copy of the said FIR of lost original PPF passbook provided me copy of SB NC No 61046679765 of State Bank of Bikaner 8 Jaipur in joint names of SEEMI SIDDQUI & IMRAN PARVEZ (wife-husband). However, Seemi is mimicked as daughter of Anees Ahmed Siddqui through the address is of Imran's flat i.e. 247 F Pock , Vijay Nagar , Delhi signed by Seemi on 26/08/2019 3
9. Failed to understand the black magic of SBI DDN to get converted copy of the PPF A/c passbook into its lest FIR at Delhi and no copy provided under RTI then its subsequent incarnation as SB AC of SB of Bikaner and Jaipur at Delhi.
10. Regarding Pt. 4 of the SBI reply (Ann III B) Answer 3&4 , I am least concerned about where Seemi lives or what she does. Her Kota address and mobile no. is mandatory in post office for serving her recovery Notice since she informed SBI DDN on settlement that she is residing in Kota That is what I requested."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 14.10.2022 stating as under:
"The interpretation of any guidelines or deduction of legal position from the same is outside the definition of information as provided under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, hence the same cannot be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2022. FAA's order, dated 18.10.2022, held as under:
"The Applicant did not receive information from the CPIO within the stipulated time limit, therefore, the Applicant has preferred the present Appeal. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished information to the Applicant vide letter No.MB/RTI/2022-23/53 dated 14.10.2022. Now, the CPIO is instructed to send a copy of the reply to the appellant within 10 days of receipt of this order...."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Mamta Pandey, CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of his RTI Application stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that clear cut clarification regarding validation of nomination of his daughter in law against the PPF account of his late son, was not provided by the CPIO till date.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of averred reply.4
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant is harbouring a criminal case pertaining to murder of his son in pursuit of which he has raised queries which do not fall under the category of "information" in a strict sense, rather it amount to seeking answers to interrogative remarks; conjectures and rhetorical statements, thus not conforming to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.." 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 washeld 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) 5 Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers and jurisdiction of Central Information Commission by giving reference various citations of the Superior courts as under -6
Like, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Adverting to the foregoing observations, no action is warranted in the matter.
Nonetheless, the Appellant is thus advised to pursue his grievances before the appropriate forum and in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act, the CPIO is advised to provide due assistance in the event that the Appellant reaches out to him for any guidance in this pursuit.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8