Central Information Commission
Yashel K. K. vs Reserve Bank Of India on 9 August, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2023/649277
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/635604
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/634258
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/629503
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/624684
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/623416
Yashel K. K. ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Reserve Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.09.2023 FA : 20.09.2023 SA : 19.10.2023
05.06.2023 27.06.2023 21.07.2023
18.05.2023 14.06.2023 13.07.2023
22.04.2023 19.05.2023 15.06.2023
21.03.2023 20.04.2023 21.05.2021
01.04.2023 13.04.2023 14.05.2023
CPIO : 19.09.2023 FAO : 17.10.2023
26.06.2023 17.07.2023
14.06.2023 11.07.2023
Hearing : 06.08.2024
19.05.2023 14.06.2023
19.04.2023 31.05.2023
13.04.2023 23.05.2023
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same
subject matter.
Page 1 of 21
Date of Decision: 07.08.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/649277
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) What is the current status of compliance N20202223023458215.
(ii) I have not yet received an acknowledgment letter through mail regarding the complaint on the above number. Why is that? A copy if sent by mail.
(iii) A copy of the bank's reply.
(iv) A copy of the ombudsmante's interventions to date.
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. The complaint N202223023458215 was closed as non-maintainable under Clause 16(1)(a) read with clause 10 (2) (b) (ii) of the Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021: the complaint is 'Sub-judice (Pending before/ Dealt with/ Settled by a Court/Tribunal/Arbitrator)' and the closure letter was issued vide email dated 24/03/2023. A copy of the same is attached for your reference. ii. The acknowledgment for receipt of complaint was sent vide email dated 06/03/2023. A copy of the same is attached for your reference. iii. Reply given by the Regulated Entity in the CMS portal with respect to the complaint N202223023458215 is attached for your reference. iv. Information sought by the applicant is not clear.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.09.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.Page 2 of 21
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.10.2023.
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/635604
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Is [email protected] the mail id used by the ombudsman?
(ii)Complaint No. N202223023226124 Why did the complaint go to 'Indian Bank' instead of South Indian Bank in the first acknowledgment? Am I the customer not clearly writing 'South Indian Bank'? Which department's fault is this?
(iii)On 25 November 2022 I contacted as Complainant No. N202223023292767 and I sent the additional document to the above mail id. Have you seen this, your honor?
How many attachments does it have?
(iv)Complainant N202223023292767 was contacted on 29 November 2022 and mail was sent to the above mail id. Did you see that? How many attachments does it have? What subject did I raise in it?
(v) Contacted as Complainant No. N202223023292767 On 4th December 2022 I have sent additional document on above mail id. Did your office notice that? If this complaint has been shared with the bank, please provide proof of sending it to them. How many attachments are there in that mail? etc./ other related information 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. [email protected] is a generic E-mail id used by RBI Ombudsman, Thiruvananthapuram.
ii. The change of name of the regulated entity in the CMS portal was a typographical error which happened during the initial processing of the complaint. On rectification of data entry error, the complaint was immediately Page 3 of 21 attended by taking into consideration the complete facts and information submitted by the complainant with South Indian Bank.
iii. The complaint no: N202223023292767 was processed in the CMS portal including all the documents sent by the applicant.
The applicant himself is the originator of the e-mail and documents attached to it. As per CIC order CIC/AT/A/2007/00017 dated March 28, 2007, the information which the applicant himself possesses need not be provided. iv. The complaint no: N202223023292767 was processed in the CMS portal including all the documents sent by the applicant.
The applicant himself is the originator of the e-mail and documents attached to it. As per CIC order CIC/AT/A/2007/00017 dated March 28, 2007, the information which the applicant himself possesses need not be provided. v. The complaint no: N202223023292767 was processed in the CMS portal including all the documents sent by the applicant.
All the complaints received at Ombudsman office and processed in the CMS portal are also accessed by the concerned Regulated Entity, and it can view all the documents attached with the complaint. The additional documents attached with the complaint in the CMS portal were also made available to the bank. The applicant himself is the originator of the e-mail and documents attached to it. As per CIC order CIC/AT/A/2007/00017 dated March 28, 2007, the information which the applicant himself possesses need not be provided, etc. 2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.07.2023 stated that:
With regard to appellant's challenge regarding non-disclosure of the number of attachments uploaded by himself on his emails of various dates, I am not inclined to accept the same. I do not find any infirmity with the stand of the CPIO in not providing the number of attachments uploaded by the appellant himself in the emails on various dates. It is not in dispute that he is asking to be provided Page 4 of 21 with the number of attachments uploaded by himself. This is beyond the scope and ambit of provisions of RTI Act. I place my reliance on the following observations of CIC in Shivi Mohan Rastogi vs. CPIO/Income Tax Officer, Ward-77(2) (02.11.2022 - CIC): MANU/CI/0415/2022- "11. From a bare perusal of above-mentioned context, it is noteworthy that TDS record of the assessee is a document/information which is available with the Appellant himself and not held by the Public Authority; moreover such documents can be accessed from the weblink portal of the Income Tax Authorities...."
From the reply issued by the CPIO, it is clear that this is not the first RTI application in the subject matter preferred by the applicant. It appears to me that the appellant is attempting to agitate the decision and procedure adopted by the Ombudsman in disposal of his complaint against South Indian Bank. In this regard, the appellant may note that if the appellant is aggrieved by the procedure/decision of Ombudsman in any of his complaint/s, the appellant may agitate the same in a manner known to law. I also note that the appellant had asked the CPIO to suggest legal help that can be done (second limb of query No.
10). In this connection, the appellant may note that the provisions of RTI Act do not contemplate public authorities becoming unpaid consultants for RTI applicants and advising them on various matters. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr.v. Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors. 1 is relevant to be noted-
" The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."Page 5 of 21
Further, it may be noted that this order has been passed after taking into consideration all the points raised in the appeal in accordance with the scheme of RTI Act. Hence, appellant's request for video conference facility is rejected. There is no merit in this appeal.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.07.2023.
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/634258
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
i How many complaints have come in this office from 01/01/2021 to 17/05/2023? ii. How many complaints have come against South Indian Bank during the above v period?
iii. How many complaints are settled and how many complaints are pending during the same period?
iv. How many compliance penalties have been imposed during the same period? Which bank and how much?
v. How many complaints are registered on mail id "[email protected]'. Record the Complaint Date, Date of Decision and Complaint Number separately. during the same period.
vi. How many complaints were closed within one month of coming to this office during the same period? How many complaints were closed in two months? How many complaints are settled after more than three months?
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-Page 6 of 21
i. A total of 24484 complaints have come to this office from 01/01/2021 to 17/05/2023.
ii. A total of 632 complaints have come against South Indian Bank during the period 01/01/2021 to 17/05/2023.
iii. As on May 17,2023, 23876 complaints were closed and 608 complaints were under process in respect of all banks.
iv. Enforcement Department, RBI has been mandated to impose monetary penalty on various banks under the provisions of section 47A read with section 46 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (BR Act), if such banks are found to have violated any statutory provisions or directions issued by RBI.
Information related to monetary penalties imposed on various banks by the Enforcement Department is available on the RBI website at following link: https:/www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_PressRelease.aspx?in=2766 v. The applicant is seeking details of the complaints registered on his e-mail id. As per CIC order CIC/AT/A/2007/00017 dated March 28, 2007, the information which the applicant himself possesses need not be provided. vi. A total of 14241 complaints were closed within one month from the date of receipt.
A total of 7725 complaints ageing between thirty to sixty days from the date of receipt were closed.
A total of 181 complaints were closed after three months from the date of receipt.
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.07.2023 stated that:
In the appeal, the appellant has challenged the reply issued to query no. 5. In the said query, the appellant had sought to know the number of complaints that have been registered on his mail id, as well as the complaint date, date of decision and complaint number separately, during the same period. The reply issued by the CPIO to the above query is reproduced below-Page 7 of 21
"The applicant is seeking details of the complaints registered on his e-mail id. As per CIC order CIC/AT/A/2007/00017 dated March 28, 2007, the information which the applicant himself possesses need not be provided".
In the appeal, the appellant has contended that the information sought by him is available in CMS portal and that the quoted CIC decision has no bearing on his matter. However, I am not inclined to accommodate the assertions made by the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant is seeking details of complaints (registered using his own email id), the concerned dates of the complaints, dates of concerned decisions and numbers allotted to his own complaints. The appellant may note that once information is already available/ accessible, the very resort to RTI Act is not sustainable. From the record placed before me, I am given to understand that the appellant can access/track the requested details himself from the CMS portal using the mobile number given by him therein. In this connection, I place my reliance on the following observations of CIC in Shivi Mohan Rastogi vs. CPIO/Income Tax Officer, Ward-77(2) (02.11.2022 - CIC) : MANU/CI/0415/2022 -
"11. From a bare perusal of above mentioned context, it is noteworthy that TDS record of the assessee is a document/information which is available with the Appellant himself and not held by the Public Authority; moreover such documents can be accessed from the weblink portal of the Income Tax Authorities. Further, during the course of hearing, the Appellant nowhere expressed his inability to access the document/information sought for which is available on the web portal."
In light of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the reply provided by the CPIO to query no.5 of the RTI application.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.07.2023.
Page 8 of 21CIC/RBIND/A/2023/629503
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
i. I am Yashel Kallulla Kandil of South Indian Bank Mattanur Branch in loan number xxxxxx000011 on 16/03/2019 I deposited Rs.25000 directly in the loan account. This amount was recovered on 18/03/2019.Do you have any confirmation letter with the bank or you informing me, the customer of this transition? So does the bank have the right to withdraw money from one loan and put it into another loan without the customer's consent? Did the honorable ombudsman see that both my loans went to NPA by withdrawing this amount that I invested directly so that this loan of mine does not become NPA?
ii. Similarly, on 18/04/2019 I pay Rs.15000 directly to the loan account from Kuthuparamba branch. That amount is also taken back without my consent and paid in another loan. In this way I got Rs 40000 less in this loan and my loan went to NPA and SMA charge was charged. Tell the bank how this transaction happened, do you have a copy of the exact reply if not, if not see this as a request and ask the bank to get a reply?
iii. If the manager steals the amount paid in the loan without the consent of the customer, what is the punishment under the rbi banking act, did you give that punishment?
iv. How much was SMA charge on my loan till 31/05/2019 if any? Did you observe that the reason for coming after that was not because of this wrong transaction?
v. Sir first try to close the loan with a small amount. I did the same and never thought that the loan amount would be stolen. Name of the branch manager who did this Page 9 of 21 transaction (this will never be a violation of privacy. His name should be mentioned, not personal information.
vi. If the amount is withdrawn without the knowledge of the customer, if they give you one more complaint, will you take cases?
A charge of "A" is recorded on 18/03/2019 and 18/04/2019 on the same loan number, what is the charge? Can you explain the charge?
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. The applicant is seeking confirmation on a transaction happened in his loan account. The information sought is not pertaining to Reserve Bank of India. The applicant may approach the appropriate public authority for the required information.
The applicant is seeking a clarification which is not "information" as defined under para 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.
The applicant is seeking a clarification by the RBIO which is not "information" as defined under para 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.
ii. The applicant is requesting RBIO to seek clarification from the RE. This is not "information" as defined under para 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. iii. The query is hypothetical in nature. This is not 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, applicant may refer Para 16.5 on 'Grievance Redressal Mechanism' of Master Circular on 'Customer Service in Banks' dated July 1, 2015 available on www.rbi.org.in under the head 'Notifications'.
iv. The information sought is not pertaining to Reserve Bank of India. The applicant may approach the appropriate public authority for the required information As for the second part of the query, information sought is not clear. v. The information sought is not pertaining to Reserve Bank of India. The applicant may approach the appropriate public authority for the required information.Page 10 of 21
vi. The applicant is seeking opinion, which is not 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
However, as per Clause 10(2)(b) of the 'Reserve Bank -- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme (RB-IOS), 2021', (2) A complaint under the Scheme shall not lie unless:
(b) the complaint is not in respect of the same cause of action which is already -
(i) pending before an Ombudsman or settled or dealt with on merits, by an Ombudsman, whether or not received from the same complainant or along with one or more complainants, or one or more of the parties concerned;
(ii) pending before any Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator or any other Forum or Authority; or, settled or dealt with on merits, by any Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator or any other Forum or Authority, whether or not received from the same complainant or along with one or more of the complainants/parties concerned;' The RB-IOS, 2021 is available at https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/RBI OS2021_amendments05082022.pdf 4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 14.06.2023 stated that:
In the appeal, the appellant contends that the CPIO only gave partial answer to the six queries. I have carefully gone through the RTI queries, reply given by the CPIO and the appeal contentions. At the outset, the appellant may note that under the provisions of RTI Act, a public authority cannot go into the merits of the decisions taken by it under various statutes/schemes. It is neither a grievance redressal mechanism nor an extension of Reserve Bank Integrated Ombudsman Scheme (RBIOS), 2021. Neither does RTI Act mandate public authorities to provide clarifications and/or advice as to how the law applies to various hypothetical scenarios/situations. The following observations of CIC in Mr. Ved Prakash Aggarwal v. CPIO, RBI (Second Appeal No. Page 11 of 21 CIC/RBIND/A/2021/602692, decision dated 29-08-2022) are relevant in this regard -
"The Commission is of the view that the respondent CPIO can only provide the information which is held by them in material form. The CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him."
It appears to me that the appellant is trying to agitate his grievances against South Indian bank. The appellant may try to appreciate the scope and ambit of the provisions of RTI Act in this regard. I place my reliance on the following observations of CIC in Goutam Chatterjee vs. Public Information Officer Under RTI and Ors. (02.05.2022 - CIC): MANU/CI/0140/2022 -
" Further, PIO is not supposed to create information or interpret information in respect of queries/clarifications. Redressal of grievance, noncompliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act".
In light of the above, no further direction is warranted to the CPIO in this regard.
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.06.2023.
Page 12 of 21CIC/RBIND/A/2023/624684 5.1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:
• N20223023216405/ N20223023259303 It is humbly requested to allow the application, related documents and the reply/document submitted by the bank as per RTI Act. Application copy, documents submitted by the applicant, bank reply, as well as documents submitted by the bank, information directed to the bank by the honorable ombudsman and final stand taken on the matter. Copies of these.
5.2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
The application copy and documents submitted by the applicant is not provided as the applicant is the originator and main custodian of the correspondence. (Ref: CIC/AT/A/2007/00017 dated March 28, 2007) The correspondence, reply given by South Indian bank and attachments in the CMS portal with respect to the complaint numbers N20223023216405/N20223023259303 are attached.
(Personal references are redacted from the reply documents as exempted under clause 8(1)(g) & (j) of RTI Act 2005).
The closure letters in respect of the said complaints are enclosed which are self- explanatory.
5.3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2023 stated that:
In the appeal, the appellant contends that the CPIO is not ready to give his application copy in the two complaints and that he needs them. It is contended Page 13 of 21 that there is no bar under RTI Act in getting the application copies given by him. He has proceeded to raise grievances against the decision taken in his complaints by the Ombudsman. He has also challenged redaction of personal information in the documents provided to him by contending that the document is not personal information, However, I am not inclined to accommodate the assertions made in the appeal. The appellant may note that the right to information as envisaged under the RTI Act means the right to information accessible under the Act and which is held by or under the control of the concerned public authority. it is not in dispute that the appellant is seeking copies of complaints/applications preferred by himself under the provisions of RTI Act. I am of the view that the CPIO's stand in refusing the same is in order. In the matter Shivi Mohan Rastogi vs. CPIO/Income Tax Officer, Ward-77(2) (02.11.2022 - CIC), where the appellant had sought for the copies of his own TDS documents, the CIC had dismissed the appeal by observing that -
"11. From a bare perusal of above-mentioned context, itis noteworthy that TDS record of the assessee is a document/information which is available with the Appellant himself and not held by the Public Authority;.
2. In addition to above, itis also not out of the place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 26781 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013, dated 17-09-2014, wherein, it was held as under:
"24. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined Page 14 of 21 under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect."
In light of the above discussion, no further direction to the CPIO is warranted in this regard Further, it may be noted that the appellant's challenge against redaction of personal information like name, mobile number, email id et, from the documents is not sustainable. I observe that the CPIO's reliance on Section 8 (1) (g) and (j) is in order. In terms of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, it is for the CPIO or the Appellate Authority to satisfy itself whether any larger public interest justifies the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual, I observe that no justification is shown by the appellant to satisfy that the disclosure of such information is in larger Public interest. Further Section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act categorically mentions that there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or Physical safety of any person. I place my reliance upon the following observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay &Ors.
"The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutiniser/coordinator/head examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer-book which does not contain any information or Signature of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure Page 15 of 21 under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. Those portions of the answer-books which contain information regarding the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise severed from the non- exempted part of the answer-books, under section 10 of RTI Act"
In light of the discussion above, no further direction is warranted to the CPIO. There is no merit in the present appeal.
5.4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.05.2021.
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/623416
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
The ombudsman complaint N202223023458215 was closed on the basis of which document you showed the bank?
I filed a complaint with the consumer dispute redressal commission as a different matter and not in this matter. Why is the complaint closed unilaterally without listening to the customer's side?
Name, Post Name, Mail ID, Phone Number of the officer who checked this complaint.
What documents did you check and close my complaint immediately after informing the bank of misleading information? Please give me the copy of the attached document.
Nowhere in the case file cc 28/2023(Redressal commission) I have mentioned the sma broken charge. Because I filed the case on 18th January 2023. The bank sent the statement of broken charges on 19/01/2023 then how can I record that in the Page 16 of 21 file I filed the case on 18/01/2023? I am requesting to get the copy of the compliance given by me to the bank, etc./ other related information 6.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. The applicant is seeking the rationale behind a decision which is not "information" as defined under para 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. ii. Please refer to the reply to Query 1.
iii. Personal information are exempted from disclosure under clause 8(1)(g) & (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
iv. Please refer to the reply to Query 1.
As for the second query, reply given by South Indian Bank in the CMS portal is attached for your reference.
v. The applicant is seeking an inference on the actions of the applicant himself and the bank which is not information as defined under para 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. The query is not specific or clear. Also the applicant is apparently seeking a copy of the document he has given to the bank, as per CIC order CIC/AT/A/2007/00017 dated February 26, 2007 information which the applicant himself possesses is not provided. However, a copy of the reply given by the bank is already provided as reply to Query 4 above.
6.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.05.2023.
Proceedings on 06.08.2024:
7. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Bhaskar, Legal Officer and Ms. Swapna Nair, Assistant Manager, Trivandrum, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 17 of 218. The appellant inter alia submitted that the FAA while disposing of his first appeals had not mentioned in its orders, the address and details of the Second Appellate Authority i.e. CIC. He further stated that in CIC/RBIND/A/2023/634258, the CPIO had not enclosed the relevant details along with their reply and he was not satisfied with the replies given by the CPIOs in rest of the appeals.
9. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had furnished point-wise replies in all the appeals. The CPIO further stated that the appellant had either sought the status of his complaints, or the documents related to those complaints which were already under his custody. Most of the queries were not clear and were in the nature of raising allegations, and the same could not be addressed under the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate replies were given by the CPIO in all the appeals. Further, the appellant had filed multiple RTI applications with an intention of deliberately diverting the time and resources of the public authority. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] The following was thus held:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for Page 18 of 21 disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it Page 25 of 30 will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.'
11. Furthermore, the findings of the Commission in the instant set of matters largely point towards a misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the appellant. Here, the appellant's attention is again invited towards certain precedents set by the superior Courts recognizing the misuse of the RTI Act: In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' Page 19 of 21 In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: '
8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: '...xxx 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.'
12. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. With these observations, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 07.08.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 20 of 21
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
O/o. The RBI Ombudsman,
CPIO,
Reserve Bank of India,
Reserve Bank of India Building,
1st Floor, Bakary Junction,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala-695003
2. Yashel K. K.
Page 21 of 21
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)