Central Information Commission
Rajesh Arvindbhai Anada vs Bank Of Baroda on 24 September, 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/2024/656532
CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/651097
Rajesh Arvindbhai Anada ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Bhavnagar, Gujarat ... ि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. 656532 13.07.2024 08.08.2024 03.09.2024 23.09.2024 18.12.2024
2. 651097 20.06.2024 12.07.2024 01.08.2024 21.08.2024 18.11.2024
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 16.09.2025
Date of Decision: 24.09.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/656532
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Page 1 of 71. Request to provide the names and addresses of the beneficiaries who have availed the capital subsidy under MSME scheme through your branch, details of the amount of capital subsidy paid to them by the State Government and Central Government, name and address of their business.
2. Request to provide the business names and addresses of the beneficiaries who have availed interest subsidy under MSME scheme through your branch, along with the amount of interest subsidy paid to them.
3. Request to provide the information about verification of the address of the beneficiary's place of business by your branch.
4. Request to provide Information about documents verified by your branch for capital subsidy and interest subsidy paid to beneficiaries under MSME scheme. 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
" सं ा 1 से 4 का उ र मांगी गई जानकारी आरटीआई अिधिनयम की धारा section 8 (1) (e) एवं 8(1)(j) के तहत कटीकरण से छूट ा है। इसके अलावा आवेदक ारा वां िछत जानकारी के कटीकरण के िलए कोई सावजिनक िहत शािमल नहीं है ।
इसके अलावा, आपके ारा मांगी गई जानकारी/ ापक, गैर- िविश ह जोिक या तो पूछताछ पर आधा रत ह या पीआईओ से ीकरण की मां ग पर आधा रत ह या िफर िन ष िनकालने या िन ष िनकालने के िलए धारणा बनाने की मां ग पर आधा रत ह। ये आरटीआई के अिधिनयम के दायरे से बाहर ह। पीआईओ को केवल आरटीआई के तहत आवेदक को जानकारी दान करने के उ े से जानकारी बनाने की आव कता नहीं है ।"
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 2 of 71.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/651097
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Request to provide the names and addresses of the beneficiaries who have availed the capital subsidy under MSME scheme through your branch, details of the amount of capital subsidy paid to them by the State Government and Central Government, name and address of their business.
2. Request to provide the names and addresses of the beneficiaries who have availed interest subsidy under MSME scheme through your branch, along with the amount of interest subsidy paid to them.
3. Request to provide the Information about verification of the address of the beneficiary's place of business by your branch.
4. Request to provide information about documents verified by your branch for capital subsidy and interest subsidy paid to beneficiaries under MSME scheme.
5. Request to provide Information regarding the documents verified by the legal panel of the bank regarding the amount of capital subsidy and interest subsidy paid to the beneficiaries under the MSME scheme 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
" सं ा 1 का उ र मां गी गई जानकारी आरटीआई अिधिनयम की धारा section 8 (1) एवं 8(1) (j) के तहत कटीकरण से छूट ा है। इसके अलावा आवेदक ारा वांिछत जानकारी के कटीकरण के िलए कोई सावजिनक िहत शािमल नहीं है।
सं ा 2 का उ रः आपके ारा मांगी गई जानकारी उपल नहीं है।
Page 3 of 7
सं ा 3 से 5 का उ र मां गी गई जानकारी /िविश नहीं है । इसिलए आपके ारा
मांगी गई जानकारी उपल नहीं है । इसके अलावा, आपके ारा मांगी गई जानकारी/
ापक, सामा , गैर- िविश ह जोिक या तो पूछताछ पर आधा रत ह या पीआईओ से ीकरण की मां ग पर आधा रत ह या िफर िन ष िनकालने या िन ष िनकालने के िलए धारणा बनाने की मांग पर आधा रत ह। ये आरटीआई के अिधिनयम के दायरे से बाहर ह और आरटीआई अिधिनयम की धारा section 2(f) म नहीं आते है । पीआईओ को केवल आरटीआई के तहत आवेदक को जानकारी दान करने के उ े से जानकारी बनाने की आव कता नहीं है ।"
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.11.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision:
3. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Baldev Patel, Regional Head and CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought in the RTI application ought to be published in public domain, in consonance with Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act. He further argued that the case of K. Narayanan v/s Bank of Baroda (referred to by the respondent in their written submissions), was not applicable to the instant case since he had sought definite and specific information in his RTI application.
5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that "3. The reply against second appeal is given as under:
1. Claim of applicant that he has not received information within stipulated time is not correct, reply of CPIO Bhavnagar was given within stipulated time limit.Page 4 of 7
The contention of applicants that CPIO and First Appellate Authority misappropriated the provisions under RTI Act, 2005 or acted with mala fide intention is unfounded, baseless and contrary to record. The respondent bank respectfully submits that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application was carefully examined in light of the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and orders were passed strictly in compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Ⅲ. Reply of RTI application attached with second appeal- Point-wise reply was already given to applicant vide letter no. RZ/BRO/LEGAL/178/2024 dated 08-08-2024.
4. There are no sufficient grounds for the second appeal, as it has been filed to seek information that is either exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, or consists of questions that are broad, general, non- specific. Such queries are based on inquiries or demand clarifications from the PIO, which are not permissible under the RTI Act.
5. PIO is not supposed to give clarification or draw inferences or to create information just for purpose of supplying the same to RTI applicant/appellant as the same is beyond the scope of RTI Act. In case of K Narayanan v/s Bank of Baroda dated 02-08-2022 (CIC/BKOBDIA12020/695751) wherein hon'ble CIC held that, the CPIO is not supposed to give clarifications; or to furnish confirmations under the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant raised objections to the argument of the respondent claiming that few of the queries do not conform to the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Nonetheless, the denial of information consisting of names and addresses of beneficiaries, under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, is found sustainable in the eyes of law. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Page 5 of 7 Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been defined, wherein the following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
That being so, the Commission finds no ground for further intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 24.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Bank of Baroda, Regional Office: Bhavnagar, Dena Bhawan, Lokhand Bazar, Khargate, Bhavnagar, Gujarat -
364001 2 Rajesh Arvindbhai Anada Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)