Central Information Commission
Amit Kumar Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 10 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : As Per Annexure
Mr Amit Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
State Bank of India
Vigilance Department
Corporate Centre, MC Road
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021
CPIO
State Bank of India
Premises & Estate Department
Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan
Patna, Bihar-800001
CPIO
State Bank of India
Regional Business Office
3rd Floor, Bhowesh Bhawan
Khanjarpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar-812001
Date of Hearing : 06/07/2023
Date of Decision : 06/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
(Note : All the above mentioned appeals of the Appellant are clubbed together,
as the subject-matter is similar in nature)
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
1
File. No. RTI CPIO FA filed on FAA order 2nd Appeal
application replied on /Complaint
filed on dated
642001 14.05.2022 31.05.2022 31.05.2022 25.06.2022 30.08.2022
641619 09.06.2022 30.06.2022 02.07.2022 29.07.2022 01.08.2022
641770 16.06.2022 23.06.2022 23.06.2022 14.07.2022 02.08.2022
642451 12.05.2022 08.06.2022 08.06.2022 30.06.2022 05.08.2022
642763 25.05.2022 16.06.2022 16.06.2022 02.07.2022 06.08.2022
642032 05.03.2022 05.04.2022 08.04.2022 05.05.2022 03.08.2022
642051 16.03.2022 13.04.2022 14.04.2022 16.05.2022 03.08.2022
642496 24.06.2022 07.07.2022 07.07.2022 03.08.2022 05.08.2022
643170 27.06.2022 16.07.2022 16.07.2022 06.08.2022 06.08.2022
643174 27.06.2022 16.07.2022 16.07.2022 06.08.2022 06.08.2022
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/642001
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.05.2022 seeking the following information:-
1) 192041/2022/Vigilance-3 2) 177768/2021/Vigilance-3 3) 186193/2021/Vigilance-3 4) 191191/2022/Vigilance-3 5) 190926/2022/Vigilance-3 6) 194222/2022/vigilance-3 "Following information Sought:-
A) Which Dept in SBI deals for the above said CVC Complain? B) Whether all above CVC complain received in SBI or not? C) All above CVC Complain in SBI, Internally forwarded to concern Team or not ?
D) Which CPIO (RM RBO Bhagalpur or SBI Vigilance Dept Corporate or SBI DGM Customer service Mumbai) will provide information pertains to above CVC complain?
E) RM RBO CPIO mention in their report information pertains to CVC complain can be obtained from Concern Dept. I want to know who concern CPIO is /Dept for the same?2
F) What is the process to get the information directly from Concern Person at our end?
G) To get the information (Report, progress and action Taken) about CVC Complain comes under RTI ACT or not ?
H) RM RBO Bhagalpur and First appellate authority mention in their report that CVC complain related information is not available in any form of Hard disc/Email/Printout/Tape/Audio/Video. Are they giving correct information? I) RM RBO Bhagalpur /First appeal authority or CVC is correct? Because CVC mention in their report already Forwarded CVC complain to SBI CVO (Copy Enclosed for reference) .
J) Which Public authority Nodal Officer (SBI Patna Circle or SBI Corporate) will transmit my RTI to correct and concern authority pertains to CVC Complain?
Pls refer (Enclosed) SBI Patna Nodal officer is Transmitting my RTI to SBI Corporate Nodal Officer and SBI Vigilance Dept Transmitting my RTI to again PATNA NODAL Officer. Finally information not avl.
J) If Applicant requested information pertains to CVC complain in any Public authority in SBI, It is whose role to transmitting my RTI to concern CPIO /Public authority?
K) on what basis , no body from SBI side is providing information to applicant pertains to CVC Complain ?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 31.05.2022 stating as under:-
"Reply to query no: A: The above said CVC complaints were received at office of CVO, SBI and subsequently forwarded to concerned department i.e., Customer Service Department, SBI, Corporate Centre, Mumbai for appropriate action. Reply to query no: B: Yes Reply to query no: C: Yes Reply to query no: D: The Department/Vertical who holds the information will provide the information.
Reply to query no: E: The information sought does not fall under the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Reply to query no: F: The information sought does not fall under the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Reply to query no: G: The information sought does not fall under the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Reply to query no: H: The information sought does not fall under the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.3
Reply to query no: I: The information sought does not fall under the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Reply to query no: J: The information sought does not fall under the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Reply to query no: K: The information sought does not fall under the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act"
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.05.2022. The FAA order dated 25.06.2022 is as under:-
"I have examined the grounds of appeal and found that the RTI application dated 14.05.2022 of the appellant was received by CPIO & Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) on 14.05.2022. The application has been responded by CPIO well within the time vide reply dated 31.05.2022. The reply given by CPIO for the RTI application is according to the Provisions of the RTI Act and no violation of the RTI Act is observed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/641619 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Pls refer Dy. Director (Finance Dept, Bihar) letter No .- 340 DTD 07.03.2022 to GM ( SBI , Patna ,Gandhi Maidan ) regarding subject for Customer Email changed in their Bank account without permission/consent.
Following information Sought against above Finance letter
1) Whether GM has replied against the said letter to customer and Finance Department or not?
2) On which date GM has replied to customer and Finance dept against the above said letter?
3) Pls provide Reply copy of same to customer and Finance dept as a reference documents for me.
4) If not replied so far, what is the reason of same?
Further, please note that LOKPAL of INDIA is also passed 02 nos order against the same and mention that it is a case of Fault on the part of Bank."
4The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 30.06.2022 stating as under:-
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.07.2022. The FAA order dated 29.07.2022 is as under:-
"It is observed that through his multiple applications/complaints, the appellant is repeatedly raising the same issue on which the CPIOs has already provided information/responded through his previous replies and the First Appellate Authority has also passed order in the matter. In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to the CVC circular No. 03/03/2017 dated 10.03.2017 and decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i."Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Therefore, no instruction is being passed to the CPIO the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/641770 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Pls refer SBI Reply dtd 13.06.2021 against INGARM complain no- 3539551. SBI Mention that - Matter is under consideration in DFS . DFS has certain few queries, which has been answered by Bank.5
Information Sought :- What are few queries raised by DFS and what is reply by SBI against the same. Kindly share queries and their replies".
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.06.2022 stating as under:-
"The information sought by you is not available at RBO Bhagalpur level in any records/printouts/Floppy/tapes/video/cassettes/email etc form."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2022. The FAA order dated 14.07.2022 is as under:-
"It has been observed that the appellant had sought information related to communication exchanged between Department of Financial Services Govt. of India and our Bank in pursuance of INGRAM complaint no 3539551.
The application was transferred to the CPIO, Bhagalpur who in turn has informed about unavailability of sought information with him.
In view of the above, the appellant is advised that only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. Further, the information(s) sought by the appellant may be said to be falling under within the category of information(s) which may impede the process of investigation being carried out by the Department of Financial Services and is therefore, exempted under section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
Therefore, no instruction is being passed to the CPIO in this matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/642451 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Following Information Sought based on SBI Customer Case no. (90744760 , 94777910 & 97786964 -Enclosed ) :- Who has changed my personal information (Change of my Registered Email id dtd 30.11.2020 ) in my Bank account ? Three Option given below.6
A) Customer B) Bank C) Third Party Breach case (Ex- Hackers/Magician/Ghost/Demon etc...) Hints- Bank Procedure says that Customer cannot change his OWN Email id dtd 30.11.2020 without OTP through Net banking and Bank Nodal officer is agreed that ( Ref Email dtd 25.03.2022 -Enclosed ) due to some Technical issue OTP was not sent to customer. Without OTP/SMS and without Customer knowledge/Consent/Information customer Email got changed in customer Bank account. For this who is responsible?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.06.2022 stating as under:-
"-With reference to your RTI Application received by us on 12.05.2022 we furnish as under- Please refer to our earlier reply dated 20.05.2021, 15.06.2021, 13.08.2021, 26.10.2021, 16.03.2022 and many more, related to this matter."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.06.2022. The FAA order dated 30.06.2022 is as under:-
"It is observed that, through his multiple applications/complaints the appellant is repeatedly raising the same issue on which the CPIOs has already provided information/responded through his previous replies and the First Appellate Authority has also passed order in the matter.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to the CVC circular No. 03/03/2017 dated 10.03.2017 and decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Further, the appellant is advised that the provisions of this Act direct the CPIO, to provide only such information, which already exists and in the form as held by the 7 Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants.
Therefore, no instruction is being passed to the CPIO in the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/642763 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.05.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Following Information Sought based on SBI Customer Case no. (90744760 , 94777910 & 97786964 -Enclosed ) :- Who has changed my personal information (Change of my Registered Email id dtd 30.11.2020 ) in my Bank account ? Three Option given below. This information is pending since 01.12.2020 with SBI (1 YR 5 MONTHS PASSED). Pls provide information against the same.
A) Customer B) Bank C) Third Party Breach case (Ex- Hackers/Magician/Ghost/Demon etc...) Following information Sought:-
1) In which Banking Ombudsman reply this query reply is covered? Pls provide the reference documents as a proof.
2) In which CPGRAM reply this query reply is covered? Pls provide the reference documents as a proof.
3) Pls provide BO Patna reply of N202122012021232. I did not raised the said complain and also did not received any reply for the same from BO Patna till date.
4) I did not found any reply for my above query in SBI Customer Service dept Reply dtd 25.03.2022. If replied by your SBI Team, Pls mention once again, who is responsible for change of my Email id dtd 30.11.2020 in my Bank account (Customer or Bank or Third Party Breach case) Hints- Bank Procedure and SBI RTI Dept says that Customer cannot change his OWN Email id dtd 30.11.2020 without OTP through Net banking and Bank Nodal officer is agreed after 1 years 4 Months later that ( Ref Email dtd 25.03.2022 ) due to some Technical issue OTP was not sent to customer . Without OTP/SMS and without Customer knowledge/Consent/Information customer Email got changed in customer Bank account. For this who is responsible?"8
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.06.2022 stating as under:-
"With reference to your RTI we furnish as under- Please refer to our earlier reply dated 20.05.2021,15.06.2021,13.08.2021,26.10.2021,16.03.2022 and many more, related to this matter. We are also enclosing the sought BO resolution PDF for your needful. "
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.06.2022. The FAA order dated 02.07.2022 is as under:-
"It is observed that, through his multiple applications/complaints the appellant is repeatedly raising the same issue on which the CPIOs has already provided information/responded through his previous replies and the First Appellate Authority has also passed order in the matter.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to the CVC circular No. 03/03/2017 dated 10.03.2017 and decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Further, the appellant is advised that, the provisions of this Act direct the CPIO, to provide only such information, which already exists and in the form as held by the Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants.
Therefore, no instruction is being passed to the CPIO in the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/642032 Information sought:
9The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.03.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Provide information and reports against following vigilance Complain under CVC.
1) 192041/2022/Vigilance-3
2) 177768/2021/Vigilance-3
3) 186193/2021/Vigilance-3
4) 191191/2022/Vigilance-3
5) 190926/2022/Vigilance-3"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.04.2022 stating as under:-
"Desired information is not available at RBO Bhagalpur Level in record/printouts/Floppy/tapes/video/cassettes/email etc. form. Information may be sought from concerned department."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.04.2022. The FAA order dated 05.05.2022 is as under:-
"The appellant vide his online application dated 05.03.2022, which was transferred under section 6(3) of RTI act to the present CPIO, had sought information related to his vigilance complaint. In response the CPIO has informed that the sought information is not available at their end.
It is observed that the appellant is repeatedly raising the same issue on which the CPIO has already responded through his previous replies and the First Appellate Authority has also passed order in the matter.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to the CVC circular No. 03.03.2017 dated 10.01.2017 and decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."10
However, the CPIO is instructed to transfer the application to the CPIO concerned, within ten days of the receipt of this order."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/642051 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Information sought - Related to Vigilance CVC complain Pls provide status, information and report against CVC complain no - 194222/2022/vigilance-3 DTD 03.03.2022".
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 13.04.2022 stating as under:-
"The information sought by you is not available at RBO Bhagalpur level in any records/printouts/Floppy/tapes/video/cassettes/email etc form. You may contact the concerned department for the same."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.04.2022. The FAA order dated 16.05.2022 is as under:-
"It is observed that through his multiple applications/complaints, the appellant is repeatedly raising the same issue on which the CPIOs has already provided information/responded through his previous replies and the First Appellate Authority has also passed order in the matter.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to the CVC circular No. 03/03/2017 dated 10.03.2017 and decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.11
ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Therefore, no instruction is being passed to the CPIO the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/642496 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Pls provide information /reports /progress CVC related complains ( 06 Nos Pending with SW - SBIND/R/E/22/00701 ) more than 1 yrs. SBI CVO RTI DEPT mention in their report (SBIND/R/E/22/00701-Enclosed ) - All CVC Complain received at SBI CVO and forwarded to 581 CORPORATE CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT MUMBAI) SBI DGM CUSTOMER SERVICE MUMBAI is transferring my RTI to Patna/Bhagalpur CPIO.
RM RBO Mention that vigilance related complain not received at Bhagalpur level in any form of CD/DVD/HARD DISC/TAPE/EMAIL/SOFY COPY/HARD COPY LEVIER ETC... and their First appeal authority is saying and passing order to his CPIO that Transfer Applicant RTI to concern dept as the information is not available at their end.
Also mention that Department/vertical pertains to this will provide this information.
Request RTI Nodal officer Mumbai, PIS transfer my RTI TO Department /vertical who is dealing my CVC Complains 06 nos."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.07.2022 stating as under:-
"Desired information has already been provided to you through your RTI dated 14.06.2022 & 20.06.2022."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.07.2022. The FAA order dated 03.08.2022 is as under:-
12"It is observed that, through his previously 43 (fourty three) applications/complaints the appellant is repeatedly raising the same issue on which the CPIOs has already provided information/responded through his previous replies and the First Appellate Authority has also passed order in the matter.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to the CVC circular No. 03/03/2017 dated 10.03.2017 and decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made.
i."Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Further, the appellant is advised that, the provisions of this Act direct the CPIO, to provide only such information, which already exists and in the form as held by the Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/643170 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Refer 561 Customer Care Case Reply by AGM LHO Patna Customer Service Dept. :
-105741738 ( Enclosed ).
Bank is saying that - Rs. 1756 is given to customer on dtd 15.03.2022 ( I.e after 1 Years & 3.5 Months ) as per Instruction.
Following information Sought based on above Customer care aces:-
1) What is reason for considering of 74 days delayed in interest after 1 Years & 3.5 Months ? Why not 5 Months & 13 days?13
2) As per SBI SOP committee decision dtd 31.03.2021 & 561 Internal Ombudsman decision dtd 13.05.2021 , Customer has shared & disclosed his Login credential , Password & OTP pertains to Net banking & Transaction . So according to SBI it is a case of negligence on the part of Customer. For customer Negligence, delayed in interest should not be given to customer (Because there is no guideline and circular is available in 561 for customer Negligence).
3) As already informed by S81 vide reply dtd 17.07.2021 & 22.07.2021 to customer ( Refer CPGRAM Complain- DF.ABD/E/2021/40743 -Enclosed -AGM & DGM LHO Patna & GM -Mumbai Customer service reply ) and also dtd 13.08.2021( through INGRAM COMPLAIN NO- 2875906 Reply ) that customer will not get any delay compensation , as Bank has complied the decision of SBI 10 decision dtd 13.05.2021 . Now why after 1 YEARS & 3.5 Months later SBI Bank is changing his statement and giving Interest for delay in response?
4) As per whom instruction, 561 Bank has given delayed in interest to customer for 74 days? Because SBI in every statement till 14.05.2022 (1 years & 3.5 Months ) mentioned that they have complied 58110 Decision.
5) Who is Top most authority above S81 SOP Committee & 561 Internal Ombudsman, i.e based on instruction given money Rs. 1756 to customer after 1 Years & 3.5 Months Later."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.07.2022 stating as under:-
"With reference to your RTI Application received by us on27.06.2022 we furnish as under-
Please refer to our earlier reply dated 20.05.2021, 15.06.2021, 13.08.2021, 26.10.2021, 16.03.2022 and many more, related to this matter.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.07.2022. The FAA order dated 06.08.2022 is as under:-
"It is observed that, through his previously 45 (fourty five) applications/complaints the appellant is repeatedly raising the same issue on which the CPIOs has already provided information/responded through his previous replies and the First Appellate Authority has also passed order in the matter.14
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to the CVC circular No. 03/03/2017 dated 10.03.2017 and decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i."Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Further, the appellant is advised that, the provisions of this Act direct the CPIO, to provide only such information, which already exists and in the form as held by the Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants.
Therefore, no instruction is being passed to the CPIO the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/643174 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
"1) 192041/2022/Vigilance-3
2) 177768/2021/Vigilance-3
3) 186193/2021/Vigilance-3
4) 191191/2022/Vigilance-3
5) 190926/2022/Vigilance-3
6) 194222/2022/vigilance-3 Information Sought : - Based on above complain i need complete report , Action taken & present Progress on the above complain. What is process of getting vigilance Related report and information etc...
Since More than 1 Yrs SBI CVO RTI Dept is not providing information & Report on the above complain.
15SBI DGM Vigilance RTI Transferring my RTI to DGM Customer Corporate Mumbai . DGM Customer Mumbai Transfer my RTI to Patna CPIO . Again Patna CPIO Transfer to Bhagalpur RM RBO CPIO . Bhagalpur CPIO is saying information not available at Bhagalpur level in form of Hard disc/soft copy/Email/Hard copy/letter/ Tape/Radio etc.... and the same may be obtained from concern CPIO . Appeal Authority Bihar is passing Order to their CPIO , Transfer applicant RTI to concern CPIO. Further information not avl .
Following Supporting documents enclosed for references.
1. SBIND/R/E/22/00701 -Vigilance RTI . Vigilance accepted all Complain received at SBI CVO Dept.
2. SBIND/R/E/22/00823 -Vigilance Dept RTI .
3. SBIND/R/E/22/00823- Vigilance to DGM Customer Mumbai corporate Transfer RTI.
4. SEIIPA/R/T/22/00089 - DGM Customer Mumbai to CPIO Patna/ Bhagalpur RTI Nodal officer Transfer.
5.SBIND/R/T/22/00755- Again RTI Nodal officer Patna to RTI Mumbai Nodal Officer Transfer.
6. SBIPA/R/T/22/00035 - Bhagalpur CPIO mention that vigilance related complain not received in any form at Bhagalpur level and same may be obtained concern CPIO. Nobody is telling to me. Who is concern CPIO.
7. SBIPA/A/E/22/00065 - SBI Bihar First Appeal authority passing order to their CPIO based on applicant request Transfer RTI to Concern CPIO."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.07.2022 stating as under:-
"sought information is already been provided to you through RTI dated 14.06.2021 & 20.06.2020."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.07.2022. The FAA order dated 06.08.2022 is as under:-
16"It is observed that, through his previously 44 (fourty four) applications/complaints the appellant is repeatedly raising the same issue on which the CPIOs has already provided information/responded through his previous replies and the First Appellate Authority has also passed order in the matter.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to the CVC circular No. 03/03/2017 dated 10.03.2017 and decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Further, the appellant is advised that, the provisions of this Act direct the CPIO, to provide only such information, which already exists and in the form as held by the Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants.
Therefore, no instruction is being passed to the CPIO the matter.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Sumit Kumar, Representative of the Appellant present through Video-Conferencing.
Respondent: Shri Kapil Virendra Trivedi, DGM; Shri Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, AGM and Shri Bhaskar Kumar, Chief Manager all present through Video- Conferencing.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.17
The Representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the RTI applications filed by the Appellant and submitted that the Respondent has not furnished complete and correct information as per the RTI applications and as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Representative of the Appellant further raised the grievance that the e-mail ID of the Appellant in the bank was changed without his knowledge and consent. He stated that complete and correct information should be provided to him.
The Representative of the Appellant further raised his grievance that despite his visit to the office of the CPIO, his grievances have not been redressed completely.
The Respondent submitted that complete factual information, as per the documents available on records and as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant on his above mentioned RTI applications. Further, the FAA had also upheld the replies given by the CPIO.
The Respondent further apprised the Commission that the Appellant had filed more than 100 RTI applications and the Commission had already heard approximately 15 appeals on 09.06.2023 where the Commission had given directions, which states as under:
"Since, the Appellant is filing numerous RTI applications based on his grievances, therefore, in the interest of justice, the Commission advice the Respondent to facilitate a meeting with the Appellant in their office on 12.06.2023 (Monday) at 11 am with respect to redressal of his grievance and ensure that his grievance should be redressed in a time bound manner."
The Respondent further submitted that based on the said directions of the Commission, the Appellant had visited the branch and all efforts were made as also due support accorded to the Appellant in redressal of his grievances. Further, the CPIO informed that as a sequel to the complaints / representations, an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh compensation has already been awarded to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the replies provided by the CPIO is bereft of merit as the above mentioned RTI Applications merely seeks for clarifications and 18 answers to interrogative queries viz. "Who has changed my personal information (Change of my Registered Email id dtd 30.11.2020 ) in my Bank account ?; Which Dept in SBI deals for the above said CVC Complain ?; Whether all above CVC complain received in SBI or not ?; What are few queries raised by DFS and what is reply by SBI against the same . Kindly share queries and their replies; etc."
It appears that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Despite this, the CPIO has provided a detailed point-wise response to the Appellant; in the spirit of RTI Act on all his above mentioned RTI applications.
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;.."
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 washeld 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 19 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;
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 20 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, the Appellant is 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: 0 "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) The Appellant is therefore, advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. Further, he is advised to approach appropriate forum to redress his grievance.
Since, the Appellant is filing multiple RTI applications based on his grievances, therefore, in the interest of justice, the Commission directs the Respondents to send the Appellant detailed written submissions based on the clarifications provided to the Appellant during his visit to the Bank ; covering all aspects of his grievances and duly mention the discussions/ clarifications / efforts made by 21 them in redressing those grievances. The Respondent should also inform the Appellant about the conclusion/solution provided to the Appellant on his grievances. The said directions of the Commission should be complied within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of written explanation should also be sent to the Commission. This written explanation should be treated as a revised reply to the Appellant.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 22