Bipinchandra Shivlal Mehta vs Union Bank Of India on 30 August, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Bipinchandra Shivlal Mehta vs Union Bank Of India on 30 August, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.04.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 16.12.2017 and first appeal dated 24.01.2018:-

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 16.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Mumbai seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 15.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 24.01.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 08.03.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 03.04.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 03.04.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the requisite information.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.01.2018 that Shri N.K. Agarwal was deputed to their bank as CVO and bank had no power to take action against CVO. The information with respect to point no. 3 of the RTI application was denied under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act and the remaining information was not available with them. The FAA Page 2 of 4 upheld the decision taken by the CPIO and stated that there was no public interest in the disclosure of the information.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri K C Chowdhary, Assistant General Manager, Central Office, Union Bank of India, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant submitted that the respondent did not provide any information relating to Mr. N.K. Agarwal and alleged that Mr. N.K. Agarwal was involved in the fraud case pertaining to recruitment of scale-II training officers. 5.2. The respondent submitted that they had provided para-wise reply vide letter dated 15.01.2018. The appellant had not raised specific request for information, therefore, no information could be furnished in response to point no. 2,4 and 5 of the RTI application.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the appellant has sought information pertaining to an examination of promotion process wherein one Mr. Rahul Agarwal participated. The appellant has neither mentioned the year in which the examination was conducted nor any specific details of the candidates whose copies of appeals/petitions he sought. In view of such ambiguous queries, the CPIO is not under an obligation to address such hypothetical queries at the cost of disproportionately exhausting resources of the public authority. The Commission refers to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] wherein it was held:

"The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace; tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of Page 3 of 4 their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."

In view of this, the Commission feels that due reply was given vide letter dated 15.01.2018. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra(सुरेशचं ा) ा) Information Commissioner(सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date:30.08.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिध मािणत स य ित) R. Sitarama Murthy(आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. THE CPIO UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAWAN, 14TH FLOOR, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 400 021 THE F.A.A, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAWAN, 14TH FLOOR, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 BIPINCHANDRA SHIVLAL MEHTA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission