Central Information Commission
Pate Meera Pandharinath vs Reserve Bank Of India on 24 June, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/2020/687835
Mrs. Pate Meera Pandharinath ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondents
O/o. the Banking Ombudsman (MH &
GOA), RBI, 1st Floor, Opp. Central
Railway Station, Byculla, Mumbai-400008
CPIO
M/o. Finance, Department of Financial
Services, Jeevan Deep Building, 3rd Floor
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
CPIO
M/o. Finance, North Block
New Delhi-110001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 17-07-2020 FA : 17-08-2020 SA : 05-10-2020
CPIO : 15-08-2020 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 17-06-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Fort, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information on twenty seven points including inter-alia is as under:-
Page 1 of 62. The CPIO vide letter dated 15-08-2020 reply is as under " Pont no. 1,5,7,8,9,10,16,17,19,21,22,23,24,26,27 denied under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 and point no. 2,6 information provided and point no. 3,4,11,12,13,14,18,20,25 query is not clear and specific and point no. 15 transfer u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 17-08-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to her. No order of FAO is placed on record. She has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to her and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondents, Shri Prakash Shindey, Deputy Legal Manager, Ms. Manisha, Shri Foram Modi, Banking Ombudsman attended the hearing through video-conferenicng. Shri S K Roy, US & CPIO and Shri Darshan Singh, ASO, DFS were personally present in the hearing.
4. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that the original RTI application was filed with the Reserve Bank of India and then they have transferred the same to the DFS and DFS transferred the RTI application to the Central Bank. The respondent submitted that point-wise reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondents and after perusal of records, observes that queries of the appellant are in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO on 27 points viz. "Which positive action taken by RBI BO on complaints f or solution of issue rather than closing complaints; Which objective of bo scheme 2006 and bcsbi code, Page 2 of 6 Banking laws and customers rights from cepd carries during handling of these complaint. etc." and it seems that the appellant is not satisfied with the grievance redressal mechanism of the public authority and he has expected that the CPIO firstly should analyze the documents and then provide information to the appellant. But 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.
7. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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 context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 3 of 6
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"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."
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 Page 4 of 6 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. Nonetheless, the respondents has given point-wise reply to the appellant and the Commission is satisfied with the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application of the appellant. The appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum in order to redress his grievance.
9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 17-06-2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO O/o. the Banking Ombudsman (MH & GOA), RBI, 1st Floor, Opp. Central Railway Station, Byculla, Mumbai-400008
2. CPIO M/o. Finance, Department of Financial Services, Jeevan Deep Building, 3rd Floor, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
3. CPIO M/o. Finance, North Block New Delhi-110001
4. Mrs. Pate Meera Pandharinath Page 6 of 6