Central Information Commission
Vishist Varma vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 9 September, 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/UCOBK/A/2023/128804
Vishist Varma ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: UCO Bank, Kolkata ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01.07.2022 FA : 30.11.2022 SA : 28.06.2023
CPIO : 28.09.2022 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 04.09.2024
Date of Decision: 06.09.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2022 seeking the following information regarding saving account no. 0277010000XXXX and locker no. 3A, LF01A/108 on the following points:-
1. How many times should the account holder visit the bank to collect the cheque book and return without getting it from the bank officers, please inform.
2. Please inform if RBI has instructed UCO Bank not to send cheque book by Speed post but are to be personally collected. Please provide the RBI Circular in this respect.Page 1 of 9
3. When the account shows a balance of Rs. 4660.37 as on 15-04-2017, are the account Holders not entitled to have a cheque book. Please provide the RBI Circular that specifies the minimum balance for issue of Cheque book.
4. Why did the branch NOT respond to the handwritten note and the cited email(s) promptly but referred to remain silent.
5. What is the reason for the branch not to give the account closing from(s) when asked for personally and also vide emails dated 30-05-2019 & 02- 08-2021..."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point (1) - Deposit Policy 2021-22 states as under
Delivery of cheque book at the Doorstep of customer on Demand through postal department (Registered/Speed Post). The demand for delivery of cheque book at residence can be raised.
a) Through his/her e-mail id registered with bank.
b) By registering with bank's M-Banking/E-banking/Telebanking services.
c) Through authorized representative with duly signed request letter.
Therefore, the account holder does not need to visit Branch for delivery of cheque book.
Point (2) - RBI has not issued any such instructions.
Point (3) - Account holder having balance of Rs. 4660.37 can get a cheque book.
As per the "Service Charges on Deposit and Other Ancillary Services 2021-22 w.e.f. 01-08-2022" of UCO Bank minimum balance requirement in SB account with Cheque Book facility are as under:-
(i) Rural: Individual - Rs. 250/- & Other -Rs. 500/-
(ii) Semi Urban: Individual - Rs. 500/- & Other Rs.100/-
(iii) Urban: Individual-Rs. 1000/- & Other Rs. 1500/-
(iv) Metro: Individual - Rs. 1000/- & Other - Rs.1500/-
Page 2 of 9
Circular of RBI is available on the website of RBI.
Point (4) - This is not information as defined in section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point (5) - Reason for not providing the account closing form(s) by the branch is not information as defined in section 2(1) of RTI Act, 2005. We have attached the account closing form as Annexure-1."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.11.2022. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.06.2023 stating inter alia as under:
"The Xerox / Scanned copies of 04 (four) documents asked for have not been provided, either, they are suppressing them or they have been destroyed. The RTI applicant d6lre3 to close the savings bank and locker accounts and seek your direction to UCO Bank to close the accounts based on a simple letter signed by the First and Second Account Holders i.e. the applicant here in Mumbai, The problem is a created by the bank branch by not providing the account closing form(s) when personally asked for. UCO Bank has also not provided a cheque book despite sufficient bank balance since 28.12-2016. A written request for cheque book was made on 13-04-2017, this request for cheque book has not been fulfilled as on date. The Locker key shall be sent by Speed post, UCO Bank should also remit Rs 859.09 the amount ln the bank as on 01-07-2022 when the branch declined to give the account closing form(S) when personally asked for."
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Raj Kumar Meena, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant stated that he has sent written submissions and a rejoinder, contents of which he had desired to be taken on record and are reproduced here for clarity:
Page 3 of 9"The applicant had desired to have the Closing Forms for the Savings Account and also The Locker, this was declined. Since the service at the bank branch was not professional the applicant decided to close the above said accounts. The applicant had also stated that the Key to the Locker would be sent by Speed Post because the bank branch compelled the account holder to visit the branch many times to collect the Cheque Book without success. The account holder had urged the bank to send the Cheque Book by Speed Post and deduct the speed post charges from account. This was not done. The bank had mentioned that it is the policy of this branch that the Cheque Book has to be collected from the branch personally. It needs to be noted that CPIO of UCO Bank has written in his letter addressed to the applicant that cheque books are to be sent to the account holders by Speed Post, apparently this procedure set by HO UCO Bank has been infringed by this branch. The applicant had written to CPIO of UCO Bank to the send Documents 3+1= 4 that were handed To The chief manager at the branch ( Mobile Number +919051471476) 3+1= 4 documents sufficient money vide IPO had been sent to UCO Bank for this purpose. Regret to state that Xerox / Scanned copies of these documents have NOT been sent to the applicant as of date The applicant had addressed the Senior (FIRST APPEALLATE AUTHORITY, GM UCO BANK) Vide letter Dated 03-02-2023 to send the 3+1=4 documents and other detail without any response as on date. The applicant does not desire to go into the past events, but am interested to close the Savings and locker account by sending the Locker key by speed post. The First and Second account holders are very senior citizens aged about +84 and 88 years of age. Because of advanced age we have been in Mumbai after being affected by Covid days at present the First Account Holder has been diagnosed with a RARE CRITICAL heart ailment and not be subjected to any form of stress and the second account holder with weak Kidney. Both of us require close medical attention, hence unable to leave Mumbai. It would be observed that this case has germinated by the functioning of the bank branch, hence the amenable solution rests with the branch. It may be noted that UCO Bank has an office at Century Bazar near Prabhadevi. An officer this branch may be deputed to collect the Locker Key or lt can be sent by speed post. It may be noted thar important Page 4 of 9 documents like Pass Ports are safely delivered by speed post. The applicant beseechs you to prevail on the CPIO to accept by the solution proposed by the applicant.
Addendum dated 01.09.2024
1) A sum of Rs 869.09 was lying in Savings Account nos. 02770100001307 as on 30-05-2019 when the applicant asked the officers at the bank to provide the Account Closing Forms for Savings and Locker; the bank officers flatly refused to give these two forms. Had these two Forms been given to the applicant; the applicant could have derived benefit from the this Money. Thus, the bank has caused injustice and harm to the applicant.
Please direct the Bank to Remit this amount to the applicant, thank you.
2) The applicant had written the following letters to the bank without any response from the Bank to REMIT the money without any response. Please direct the Bank to Remit this amount to the applicant, thank you
3) In addition to the aforesaid the applicant desires to state that the following letters were addressed to bank to submit the Xerox / Scanned 3+1=4 documents, referred under submission dated 29th August 2024, without any response as on date. It is of utmost importance that the bank submits these 4 documents, suitable directions be given to the bank to provide 4 documents to the applicant. Rupees Forty vide two IPO has been given to the bank for this purpose The above letters have been submitted to CIC along with the applications letter to CIC. The applicant had written so many letters and has received only ONE letter as reply that is letter from CPIO (letter No. HO/OSD/CS/ RTI/1034/2022-23 Dated 28-092022) that to after a delay of 86 days from date of receiving applicants' letter on 04-07-2022 at 16.34 HRS. A letter was addressed to First Appellate Authority vide VV/ Closure-7 RTI Dated 30-11-2022, under DTDC/N M23383240 Dated 30-11-2022 (followed) by TWO Reminders viz: VV/ Closure- 7B Dated 23-01- 2023 & VV/ Closure- 7BC Dated 03-02- 2023 (Speed Post). Sorry to state there has been NO REPLY from First Appellate Authority as on date ie 01-09-2024.
Page 5 of 9From the aforesaid submission you may conclude the efficiency and functioning of UCO Bank, it is quiet possible that UCO Bank does not desire to respond to Savings Account Holders; but it appears that UCO Bank has SCANT RESPECT to the Rules and Guidelines defined by RTI."
7. The Respondent at the outset submitted that what the Appellant is seeking for is not maintainable under RTI Act as he is asking for a grievance to be redressed. At the behest of the Commission, nonetheless, the CPIO agreed to facilitate the Appellant to the best extent possible.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that concededly the Appellant has neither sough for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the instant RTI Application, nor is he seeking for any relief that is amenable to Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. However, considering the advanced age of the Appellant and the ordeal narrated by him, the Commission strongly advises the Respondent to facilitate the Appellant in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act to have his grievance redressed.
9. Nonetheless, 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.
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 Page 6 of 9 `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:
"..... 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;Page 7 of 9
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)
10. Further, in the facts of the instant matter, the Appellant is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The 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 has 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:
Page 8 of 9"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)
11. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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: 06.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
UCO Bank, CPIO, Customer Services
And Customer Complaints Cell, And
Operations And Services Department,
Head Office, 2nd Floor, 10, B.T.M. Sarani,
Kolkata, W. B.- 700001
2. Vishist Varma
Page 9 of 9
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)