Central Information Commission
Rohida Purushottam Ramchand vs Bank Of Baroda on 13 March, 2025
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/BKOBD/A/2024/615356
Rohida Purushottam ... अपीलकता/Appellant
Ramchand
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 08.01.2024 FA : 05.03.2024 SA : Nil
CPIO : 19.01.2024 FAO : 15.03.2024 Hearing : 03.03.2025
Date of Decision: 13.03.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "I wish to ask you whether there is any rule or policy of the board of directors of the bank that every unaudited profit and loss account and balance sheet of clients even those not falling under the audit case category under income tax act should be signed by the Chartered accountant only with seal and UDIN.
2. I wish to ask you whether there is any rule or policy of the board of directors of the bank that the customer who wishes to open a current account with the bank should get a KYC certificate from a Chartered accountant with seal and UDIN.Page 1 of 6
3. I wish to ask you whether there is any rule or policy of the board of directors of the bank that a chartered accountant certificate with seal and UDIN number is required for giving Net worth Certificate and no dues towards government certificate of client."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Reply to point No. 1 and 3: Submission of Financial Statement is required as per the rules and guidelines issued by various regulatory authorities.
Reply to Point No.2: Information sought has been transferred to PIO, Head Office, Baroda, as the matter pertains to PIO, Head Office, Baroda."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 15.03.2024 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 Nil.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Sunil Kumar Sachan, DGM & CPIO along with Deepak, Chief Manager (Legal) attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant stated that he is relying on the contents of the written submissions filed prior to the hearing, wherein the sum and substance of his arguments was- 'My submission is that these problems are faced by many clients and public at large who have to unnecessarily run behind Chartered accountants to get their documents certified with UDIN number. The PIO was asked whether the bank have any specific guidelines to get the documents certified from Chartered Accountants with UDIN number. I am not getting any specific reply from your bank authorities as to whether the CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Certification is compulsory or not.' Further, it was also alleged therein Page 2 of 6 that no reply has been received from the Head Office, Bank of Baroda for point no.2 of the RTI Application till date.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that the RTI Application seeks answers to situational queries.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that concededly, the information sought for in the RTI Application is speculative and conjecture based, answers to which cannot be demanded from the CPIO as a matter of right under the RTI Act. The reply provided by the CPIO seeks to facilitate the Appellant in a feasible manner on points 1 & 3 and is found to be in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. However, the transfer of the RTI Application to another pubic authority for point no.2 is rather misleading considering the fact that the Respondent acknowledges at this stage that the queries raised are situational in nature and therefore it would have been prudent for the Respondent to have disposed of the RTI Application conclusively at their end itself mentioning the mandate of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the 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;.."Page 3 of 6
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) 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:Page 4 of 6
"..... 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."
9. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention or relief to be ordered in the matter.
10. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी राम लंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 13.03.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कु मार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Center, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051
2. Rohida Purushottam Ramchand Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)