Central Information Commission
Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe vs Bank Of Baroda on 29 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123157 +
CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123148 +
CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123182
Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Aurangabad, MH ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 123157 19.02.2024 16.03.2024 29.04.2024 21.05.2024 Nil.
2. 123148 09.02.2024 07.03.2024 15.04.2024 21.05.2024 16.07.2024
3. 123182 27.03.2024 25.04.2024 29.04.2024 20.05.2024 16.07.2024
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 28.08.2025
Date of Decision: 29.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123157 Page 1 of 14
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. A letter and documents have been submitted in our office on 23.12.2023 as per the subject "Application letter for the purpose of satisfaction of income suspicion on the basis of evidence received by the Reserve Bank". Information about the entire action taken by you on the said letter should be given to me in writing. Reg. by post.
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Your above-mentioned application dt. Received on 20.03.2024. In this regard we would like to inform you that we have not paid the RTI fee of ₹10/- along with the said application. Also we have mentioned that we do not come under the poverty line.
For this reason, we hereby request you to kindly deposit 10/- through DD/Bankers Cheque/Indian Postal Order or deposit in any branch of Bank of Baroda and send us the original copy. Alternatively you can also apply online through rtionline.gov.in."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.05.2024 directed the CPIO to revisit the RTI Application.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123148
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Page 2 of 141. How much home loan was given from 2020 to 2024.
2. Also, information about how many people have been distributed subsidy under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and in what time frame.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this regard we would like to inform you that we have not paid the RTI fee of ₹10/- along with the said application. Also we have mentioned that we do not come under the poverty line.
For this reason, we hereby request you to kindly deposit 10/- through DD/Bankers Cheque/Indian Postal Order or deposit in any branch of Bank of Baroda and send us the original copy. Alternatively you can also apply online through rtionline.gov.in."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.05.2024 directed the CPIO to revisit the RTI application and dispose of the same on merit within 15 days form the date of receipt of this letter for point no. 2 of the application.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.07.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123182
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Provide a copy of the audited balance sheet of Vijaya Bank / Bank of Baroda for the last two financial years (2021-2022 and 2022-2023). If the balance sheet is already publicly available, please provide a link or reference.Page 3 of 14
2. Provide a list of borrowers whose home loans and business loans were more than Rs 50 lakhs and how many such borrowers' home loans and business loans have been written off by Vijaya Bank / Bank of Baroda in the last two financial years (2021-2022 and 2022-2023).
3. Provide the number of borrowers whose outstanding home loan and business loan amount is above Rs.1 crore and who have settled their home loan and business loan with Vijaya Bank / Bank of Baroda in the last two financial years (2021-2022 and 2022-2023) for less than 50% of the principal outstanding.
4. Provide the list of how many borrowers' home loan or merchant loan accounts have been declared NPA / Non Performing Asset in Vijaya Bank / Bank of Baroda in the last two financial years (2021-2022 and 2022-2023) and account numbers *******0022, ******0148., ******0172, ******0238, ******0151, ******0004, *******0173, *******1989, *******0036 Please provide NPA certificate of this merchant loan account.
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"In this context, we inform you that your application has been sent to our head office for the information asked by you from serial no. 1 to 4.
And in the above application you have asked us for NPA certificate of your accounts. We are sending the certificate obtained from the concerned branch along with this letter."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 4 of 143.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.07.2024.
4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sachin Khadare, Legal Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. In file nos. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123157 and CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123148, the appellant contended that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He stated that even after direction of the FAA's order, the CPIO had not provided the sought information. In response, the respondent reiterated his written submission dated 21.08.2025 FOR CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123157 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1) That the Respondent Bank of Baroda is the Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having one of the Regional Office at Bank of Baroda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Plot No.8, Sect-E, CIDCO, N-5, Town Centre, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), Maharashtra-431003. Mr. Kishore Babu KVK, is the CPIO and presently working as the Assistant General Manager/Regional Head of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), having authority his favor for signing the written statement, pleadings, purshis, replies, etc., in all relevant matters including under provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
2) That the RTI application dated 19.02.2024 forming the subject matter of present appeal was received by respondent CPIO office on 20.02.2024 (is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "I"). As per contents of said RTI application, information sought therein as under
A letter dated 23.12.2023 submitted with your Branch. Kindly provide complete information about action taken on said letter dated 23.12.2023.Page 5 of 14
However, the said application was not accompanied with necessary Fees as per RTI rules therefore the same was returned to the applicant vide reply on 16.03.2024 (Is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "2") informing him to present his application along with necessary Fees. Thereafter applicant submit his application with RTI Fees vide IPO no. 10F-719022 on 18.03.2024 which received by the respondent CPIO Office on 19.03.2024 and the same was disposed off in terms of provisions of RTI Act, vide reply on 15.04.2024 (is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-"3") whereby the applicant was informed with relevant details.
3) That the applicant Filed First Appeal dated 15.04.2024 and the same was received on 30.04.2024 and disposed off by the First Appellate Authority vide reply on 21.05.2025 (is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "4") with direction to respondent CPIO to revisit RTI application for its disposal on merits. As per directions in said order by The first appellate Authority, the RTI application was re-considered on merits by respondent CPIO and in terms of said order, the same was disposed off vide reply on 30.05.2025 (is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "5"). whereby the applicant was provided with the available and relevant information sought under his RTI application pertaining to our Adalat Road Branch.
4) That, The respondent CPIO strictly complied with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 while disposing the RTI application dated 19.02.2024 under reference and has also complied with the directions under order of First Appeal with due diligence while replying to said RTI application. Therefore, the issues raised by the applicant herein the second appeal with the malfide intention to blame the opposite party Bank or respondent CPIO for alleged negligence or non- compliance and thereby the applicant has filed this present second appeal before Hon. CIC, Page 6 of 14
5) That incidentally it's also submitted that appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe is NPA Borrower cum Mortgagor in NPA Accounts having aggregate outstansting Rs. 1.48 Crore approx with our Bank. The appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe is habitual complainant /applicant who keeps hunting various forums, law courts, public. officials and Govt. Offices and mislead them with falls or hypothetical allegations against Bank with malice intent to derail the lawful recovery process initiated by Bank under provisions of The SARFAESI Act, 2002 and The RDB Act, 1993. The appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe hand in glows with others is also accused of Criminal Trespass and Violating a Lawful Order from a Public Authority thereby an FIR no.0052/2024 registered against him under Sec. 34, 188 and Sec. 447 of IPC 1860 with Police Station, MIDC Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad and the same is pending for logical conclusion with competent Authority. Moreover, Bank has filed Original applications bearing no. OA-591/2024, OA-656/2024 and OA-523/2024 under RDB Act, 1993 against defaulter Prop. Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe & others for recovery of public money so duped by defaulters Mr. Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe & others and said OAs are also under adjudication before Hon. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad.
It may also be noted that the appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe appears to have running an institution name & styled as Nishulka Karja Mukti Kendra i.e. िनः शु कजा मु क ा (a photograph dated 27.02.2024 which is taken during physical possession of his charged assets to the Bank is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "6") and thereby the appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe also appears to have mis-using the RTI Mechanism to gather evidence for litigations to his personal gain and for the benefit the his selected defaulters of various Financial institutions or Banks. Thus, the acts of applicant appellant like Page 7 of 14 Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, therefore suitable action may be taken by Hon. CIC against such applicant/appellant.
6) That, in view of the aforesaid contentions and documents on record, it's denied that the respondent CPIO has failed to provide information in terms of RTI Act, 2005. It also It's denied that the respondent CPIO or any of the Bank officials acted in contravention of provisions of RTI Act, 2005 or the behavior of respondent CPIO or any of the Bank Officials is illegal or unlawful in any manner. The entire procedure of pertaining to disposal of RTI application dated 19.02.2024 is not only transparent but also in accordance with provisions of law and hence none of the adverse allegations against the same are tenable and are liable to be rejected. All such allegations against respondent CPIO or Bank are treated baseless and only hypothetical in nature. In view of foregoing, it is respectfully submitted here that since the respondent CPIO has judiciously attended the RTI application of the appellant and has replied to the application within stipulated time period, the present appeal/complaint may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice as same is devoid of any merits."
The respondent further stated that in compliance of the FAA's order dated 21.05.2024, the CPIO has provided the available information on 30.05.2024 and the relevant para is reproduced as below:-
In this regard we wish to inform that the branch has taken on record your letter dated 23.12.2023 and has noted your concern. After going through the issues raised by you in the salo letter the same were found to be not pertinent to the branch and the branch has considered it appropriate to not provide any reply to this letter or take any action.Page 8 of 14
In file no. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123148, a written submission dated 21.08.2025 of the respondent is reproduced as below:-
1) That the Respondent Bank of Baroda is the Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having one of the Regional Office at Bank of Baroda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Plot No.8. Sect-E, CIDCO, N-5, Town Centre, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), Maharashtra-431003. Mr. Kishore Babu KVK, is the CPIO and presently working as the Assistant General Manager / Regional Head of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), having authority his favor for signing the written statement, pleadings, purshis, replies, etc., in all relevant matters including under provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
2) That the RTI application dated 09.02.2024 forming the subject matter of present appeal was received by respondent CPIO on 12.02.2024 (is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "1"). As per contents of said RTI application, the applicant was addressed to our Bank of Baroda, Adalat road Branch and the point-wise information sought therein as under:
A. How many Home loans was given for 2020 to 2024 and B. How many peoples disbursed with subsidy under PMAY Scheme and how much time taken for the same.
However, the said application was not accompanied with necessary Fees as per RTI rules therefore the same was returned to the applicant vide reply on 07.03.2024 (is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "2") informing him to present his application along with necessary Fees. Thereafter applicant submit his application with RTI Fees vide IPO no. 10F-719019 on 18.03.2024 which received by the respondent CPIO Office on 19.03.2024 and the same was disposed off in Page 9 of 14 terms of provisions of RTI Act, vide reply on 15.04.2024 (is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-"3") whereby the applicant was provided with the available and relevant information sought under point no. I of his RTI application for requested period of 01.01.2020 to 12.04.2024.
3) That the applicant filed first appeal dated 15.04.2024 and the same was received on 30.04.2024 and disposed off by the First Appellate Authority vide reply on 21.05.2025 (is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "4") with direction to respondent CPIO to revisit RTI application for its disposal on merits. As per directions in said order by First Appellate Authority, the RTI application was re-considered on merits by respondent CPIO and in terms of said order, the same was disposed off vide reply on 30.05.2025 (is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "5") whereby the applicant was provided with the available and relevant information sought under point no. 2 of his RTI application pertaining to the concerned to our Adalat road Branch.
4) That. The respondent CPIO strictly complied with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 while disposing the RTI application under reference and has also complied with the directions under order of First Appeal with due diligence while replying to said RTI application. Therefore, the issues raised by the applicant herein the second appeal with the malfide intention to blame the opposite party Bank or respondent CPIO for alleged negligence or non-compliance and thereby the applicant has filed this present second appeal before Hon. CIC.
5) That incidentally it's also submitted that appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe is NPA Borrower cum Mortgagor in NPA Accounts having aggregate outstansting Rs. 1.48 Crore approx with our Bank. The appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe is habitual complainant /applicant who keeps hunting various forums, law courts, public officials and Govt. Offices and mislead them with falls or hypothetical allegations against Bank with malice intent to derail the lawful Page 10 of 14 recovery process initiated by Bank under provisions of The SARFAESI Act, 2002 and The RDB Act, 1993. The appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe hand in glows with others is also accused of Criminal Trespass and Violating a Lawful Order from a Public Authority thereby an FIR no.0052/2024 registered against him under Sec. 34, 188 and Sec. 447 of IPC 1860 with Police Station, MIDC Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad and the same is pending for logical conclusion with competent Authority. Moreover, Bank has filed Original applications bearing no. OA-591/2024, OA-656/2024 and OA-523/2024 under RDB Act, 1993 against defaulter Prop. Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe & others for recovery of public money so duped by defaulters Mr. Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe & others and said OAs are also under adjudication before Hon. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad.
It may also be noted that the appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe appears to have running an institution name & styled as Nishulka Karja Mukti Kendra ie.
िनः शु कजा मु क ा (a photograph dated 27.02.2024 which is taken during physical possession of his charged assets to the Bank is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- "6") and thereby the appellant Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe also appears to have mis-using the RTI Mechanism to gather evidence for litigations to his personal gain and for the benefit the his selected defaulters of various Financial institutions or Banks. Thus, the acts of applicant appellant like Mr. Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, therefore suitable action may be taken by Hon. CIC against such applicant/appellant.
6) That, in view of the aforesaid contentions and documents on record, it's denied that the respondent CPIO has failed to provide information in terms of RTI Act, 2005. It also It's denied that the respondent CPIO or any of the Bank officials acted in contravention of provisions of RTI Act, 2005 or the behavior of Page 11 of 14 respondent CPIO or any of the Bank Officials is illegal or unlawful in any manner. The entire procedure of pertaining to disposal of RTI application dated 09.02.2024 is not only transparent but also in accordance with provisions of law and hence none of the adverse allegations against the same are tenable and are liable to be rejected. All such allegations against respondent CPIO or Bank are treated baseless and only hypothetical in nature. In view of foregoing, it is respectfully submitted here that since the respondent CPIO has judiciously attended the RTI application of the appellant and has replied to the application within stipulated time period, the present appeal/complaint may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice as same is devoid of any merits." The respondent further stated that in compliance of the FAA's order dated 21.05.2024, the CPIO has provided the available information on 30.05.2024 and the relevant para is reproduced as below:-
In this regard, we wish to inform you that our Adalat Road Branch has disbursed subsidy under PMAY scheme in 1 (one) account during the period of 01.01.2020 to 12.04.2024. The subsidy was disbursed within 7 days to the respective account after its receipt from concerned authority.
6. In file no. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123182, the appellant stated that complete information had not been provided by the CPIO. In response, the respondent submitted that the information sought on point no. 4, pertaining to the appellant's NPA's accounts had been furnished by the CPIO vide letter dated 25.04.2024. For point no. 1 to 3, their head office had furnished a reply vide letter dated 24.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. िब दु सं ा 1 का उ रः मांगी गई जानकारी हमारे बक की वेबसाइट पर उपल है िजसे िन िल खत िलंक के मा म से ा िकया जा सकता है :Page 12 of 14
https://www.bankofbaroda.in/shareholders-corner/annual-reports
2. िब दु सं ा 2 एवं 4 का उ रः मांगी गई जानकारी गत कृित की है और तीसरे प की जानकारी से सं बंिधत है , जो की गोपनीयता पर अनुिचत आ मण का कारण बनेगी और यी संबंध के तहत भी इसका खुलासा ापक सावजिनक िहत की गारं टी नहीं दे ता है और इसे वािण क िव ास और ापार रह ों के तहत रखा जाता है । िजसके कटीकरण से तीसरे प की ित ध थित को नुकसान होगा। इसिलए, मांगी गई जानकारी का खुलासा आरटीआई अिधिनयम की धारा 8 (1) (डी), (ई) और (जे) के तहत छूट दी गई है ।
3. िब दु सं ा 3 का उ रः मांगी गई जानकारी भौितक प म आसानी से उपल नहीं होती है और मांगी गई जानकारी के सं हण और िमलान से संसाधनों का असंगत प से उपयोग होगा। इसिलए, आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 7(9) के तहत जानकारी दान नहीं की जा सकती।
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that in file nos.
CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123157 and CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123148, the CPIO, in complaince of the FAA's orders, has provided appropriate replies to the appellant vide letter dated 30.05.2024. Further, in file no. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/123182, appropriate replies have been given to the appellant vide letter dated 24.04.2024 and 25.04.2024. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
8. Further, the Commission notes vide the written submissions of the respondent that the appellant is using his Right to Information just to harass the respondent public authority. The appellant is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter Page 13 of 14 are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.08.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Bank of Baroda, Regional Office : Aurangabad Region, Plot No. 8, Sector - E, N-5, CIDCO, Town Centre, Aurangabad, Maharashtra -
431003 2 Ganesh Bhausaheb Bodkhe Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)