Central Information Commission
Poonam Bansal vs Bank Of Baroda on 12 March, 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/2024/107187 +
CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/101047 +
CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/106935
Poonam Bansal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Meerut, UP ... ि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. 107187 15.07.2023 16.08.2023 27.08.2023 26.09.2023 28.11.2023
2. 101047 21.07.2023 10.08.2023 27.08.2023 26.09.2023 30.11.2023
3. 106935 10.09.2023 09.10.2023 30.10.2023 Not on 07.12.2023
record
Note: The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
similar RTI Application(s) and the same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 03.03.2025
Date of Decision: 11.03.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Page 1 of 11
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/107187
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"िनवेदन है िक वष 2017 म मेरे ारा फम नमो नारायण एं ड कंपनी खाता सं ा 5/46 के सीसी खाते म गारं टी दान की गई थी िजसके अंतगत बक ारा खाते को एनपीए घोिषत करना पाया गया है िजसकी कोई सूचना पूव म मुझ गारं टर को िकसी भी कार से दान नहीं की गई सं ान होने पर मेरे ारा गारं टी िकए गए खाते के ोपराइटर ीमती मीनू जैन ोपराइटर नमो नारायण एं ड कंपनी पर हर कार से बक का बकाया जमा करने के िलए दबाव बनाया जा रहा है लेिकन ऋणी मीनू जैन बक ारा खाते की एनपीए ि या को ीकार नहीं कर रही है और बक र पर अपने साथ हो रही अिविधक अनैितक कपट पूण गितिविधयों का आरोप िनरं तर लगा रही है। िजसके अंतगत ऋणी मीनू जैन ारा िदनांक 25/11/2022 को िल खत एवं ेिषत एक आपि प मुझे ुत िकया गया था िजसम 5 पेज के अंतगत आप ी के अंतगत 11 िबंदुओं पर अपना प ुत िकया गया था ोंिक सभी आपि यां बक शासन के िव की गई ह। अतः बक का दािय बनता है िक वह 11 िबंदुओं पर ऋणी की आपि यों का िन ारण कर।
1. संदभ म सूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 के अंतगत ऋणी की सभी 11 िबंदुओं की आपि यों पर त ाल सूचना दान कराने की कृपा कर।
2. िदनांक 29/12/22 को मेरे ारा व र शाखा बंधक बक ऑफ बड़ौदा को अित गंभीर आपि के अंतगत एक प ेिषत िकया गया था प के िबंदु सं ा 4 का संदभ हण कर और की गई समी ा िन ष और कायवाही की स ािपत ित सूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 के अंतगत दान कराने की कृपा कर।"
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-Page 2 of 11
"िबंदु 1 म आपने मीनू जैन ारा आपको िलखे गए प िदनांक 25.11.2022 के संबंध म जानकारी मां गी है ।
िबंदु 2 म प िदनां क 29.12.2022 के मांक 4 के संबंध म जानकारी मां गी है। प
िदनांक 29.12.2022 के मांक 4 म मीनू जैन ारा आपको िलखे गये प िदनां क 25.11.2022
का उ ेख है।
प िदनां क 25.11.2022 की जानकारी आपके ारा िदनां क 05.12.2022 को आरटीआई आवेदन के मा म से मांगी गई है । अधोह ा री िदनांक 28.12.2022 के उ र के मा म से पहले ही उ र दे चुके ह। यहां तक िक थम अपीलीय ािधकारी ने भी प िदनांक 03.03.2023 के मा म से जवाब िदया है ।
हम आपका ान माननीय क ीय सूचना आयोग ारा फ़ाइल सं ा CIC/AD/A/2013/001326SA िदनां क 25.06.2014 के तहत ी रमेश चंद जैन बनाम िद ी प रवहन िनगम शीषक से पा रत आदे श की ओर आकिषत करते ह। उ आदे श म उ ेख
िकया गया है िक "आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 के तहत नाग रक को उसी या समान या थोड़ी बदली ई सूचना अनुरोध को दोहराने का कोई अिधकार नहीं है , िजसके िलए उसे पहले ही िति या िमल गई है।"
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2023. The FAA vide order dated 26.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.11.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/101047
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Page 3 of 11 "िनवेदन यह है िक िदनां क 20/07/23 को बक ऑफ बड़ौदा शासन ारा बक का ापना िदवस मनाया गया है , िजसके अंतगत बक शासन ारा िविभ सावजिनक ानों एवं शासिनक कायालयों म ृित प उपकरण उपहार प भट िकए सं ान म आए ह, िजसके अंतगत िन िबंदुओं पर सूचना दान करने की कृपा कर:-
1. े ीय कायालय प र े र पर े म कहां -कहां बक का ापना िदवस मनाया गया?
िकस-िकस कायालय को उपहार भट िकए गए? पूण स ािपत िववरण सूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम के अंतगत दान कराने की कृपा कर।
2. े ीय कायालय की थक- थक शाखा र पर िकतने शासिनक कायालय पर उपहार भट िकए गए? उपहारों की कीमत सिहत पूण स ािपत िववरण दान कराने की कृपा कर।
3. शाखा बड़ौत ारा बक ऑफ बड़ौदा के 116 ापना िदवस पर िदनां क 20/07/23 को सावजिनक ानों एवं शासिनक कायालयों म उपहार प भट िकए गए उपकरणों, सं ानों एवं भट करने वाले अिधका रयों एवं कमचा रयों का पूण स ािपत िववरण दान कराने की कृपा कर, जो दै िनक समाचार प ों कािशत कराए गए ह (जो हम बक अिधकारी के ाट् सएप े टस के मा म से पता चले है )।
4. बक ऑफ बड़ौदा के 116 ापना िदवस पर सावजिनक ानों एवं शासिनक कायालयों पर उपकरण भट करने का काय म के िनदे शक सिहत काय म के पूण शासिनक िववरण दान कराने की कृपा कर।
5. िदनांक 20/07/23 को बक ऑफ बड़ौदा शासन ारा 116 ापना िदवस पर बक शासन ारा बड़ौत थाने / कोतवाली को िदए गए उपहारों, उपकरणों, िमठाइयों आिद की कीमत थक- थक एवं उप त अिधका रयों कमचा रयों के िववरण सिहत पूण स ािपत ौरा दान कराने की कृपा कर।..." etc. 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:
Page 4 of 112.2 "िबंदु 1-10: आरटीआई आवेदन म बक ऑफ बड़ौदा की िविभ शाखाओं/कायालयों ारा ापना िदवस समारोह के संबंध म आपके ारा मांगी गई जानकारी संकिलत प म उपल नहीं है और इसिलए सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 धारा 7(9) के तहत आपको जानकारी दान नहीं की जा सकती ोंिक यह उ र दे ने वाले सावजिनक ािधकरण के संसाधनों को असंगत प से िवचिलत कर दे गा।
िबंदु 11: आपके ारा मां गी गई जानकारी दान नहीं की जा सकती ोंिक यह सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8 (1) (जे) के तहत छूट ा है ोंिक यह कमचा रयों की गत जानकारी से संबंिधत है ।"
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2023. The FAA vide order dated 26.09.2023 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 30.11.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/106935
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"िनवेदन यह है िक बक ऑफ बड़ौदा की शाखा गां धी रोड बड़ौत पर मे रा खाता है खाता सं ा 6/73 पूनम बंसल के हाउिसंग लोन के नाम पर संचािलत रहा है िजसके अंतगत िन िबंदुओं पर स ािपत सूचना दान करने की कृपा कर।
1. खाता सं ा *******0073 के अंतगत िदनांक 26/10/21 को पए 5000 किथत प से जमा होने पाए गए ह सूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम के अंतगत खाता िववरण की स ािपत ित एवं ₹5000 के 26/10/21 के उस जमा वाउचर की स ािपत ित िजसके मा म से ₹5000 मेरे खाते म जमा िकए गए दान करने की कृपा कर।
2. खाता सं ा 6/73 के अंतगत मेरे ारा मोरटो रयम के हेतु िदए गए ह िल खत ाथना प की स ािपत ित दान करने की कृपा कर।"Page 5 of 11
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.10.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:
"आपने 26.10.2021 को ऋण खाते *****0073 म 5000 पये जमा करने के संबंध म जानकारी मांगी है और उ ऋण खाते म गन का अनुरोध प माँगा है । इस संबंध म, कृपया ान द िक आप अपने आरटीआई आवेदन िदनांक 16.10.2022 म उ ऋण खाते के संबंध म पहले ही जानकारी मांग चुके ह िजसका उ र प RO/MEE/RTI/PIO/89/22 िदनांक 15.11.2022 और थम अपीलीय ािधकारी के प बरे ली/अंचल/11/िविध/1307 िदनांक 07.12.2022 ारा िदया गया है । आपके आरटीआई आवेदन िदनांक 03.01.2022 म भी ऋण खाता *******0073 के संबंध म जानकारी मांगी गई है िजसका उ र प RO/MEE/RTI/PIO /02/2022 िदनांक 08.02.2022 ारा िदया गया है और थम अपीलीय ािधकारी के प बरे ली/अंचल/11/िविध/1158 िदनांक 01.04.2022 ारा िदया गया है ।
इस संबंध म हम आपका ान माननीय क ीय सूचना आयोग ारा फ़ाइल सं ा CIC/AD/A/2013/001326SA िदनांक 25.06.2014 के तहत ी रमेश चंद जैन बनाम िद ी प रवहन िनगम शीषक से पा रत आदे श की ओर आकिषत करते ह। उ आदे श म उ ेख िकया गया है िक "आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 के तहत नाग रक को उसी या समान या थोड़ी बदली ई सूचना अनुरोध को दोहराने का कोई अिधकार नहीं है . िजसके िलए उसे पहले ही िति या िमल गई है ।""
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.10.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 3.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.12.2023. Hearing Proceedings & Decision
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Rajesh Khare, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 6 of 115. The Appellant upon a query from the Commission asking her to rebut the common reply of the CPIO contained in Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/107187 & CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/106935 suggesting that the Appellant is repeating her RTI Applications and that replies have been provided earlier, merely stated that no information was provided. Further, with respect to Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/107187, it was observed that the information sought for in the RTI Application is not even clear in terms of what letter is being referred to therein, to this, the Appellant admitted that the referred letter was not enclosed with the second appeal. It was also recalled that relief was ordered to the Appellant previously in similar overlapping cases vide Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/140503 and CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/113143. While a misplaced second appeal again premised on similar subject matter vide Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/144811 was also dismissed.
6. The Respondent reiterated the replies on record in Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/107187 and in CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/101047, while in Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/106935, it was added that the FAA had eventually passed an order on 07.12.2023 wherein the CPIO was asked to revisit if the same information had been earlier provided to the Appellant. That, in pursuance of the said order, a reply was provided to the Appellant on 27.12.2023, wherein it was confirmed that the Appellant had previously sought for the same information. Further, the CPIO relied on the details of these RTI Application(s) as mentioned in his written submissions dated 20.02.2025.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that considering the lack of any strength in the rebuttal sought from the Appellant during the hearing against the stance taken by the Respondent regarding the RTIs being repetitive in nature as also noting the cumbersome Page 7 of 11 and overlapping nature of these RTI Application(s), no scope of action or relief is pertinent in the matter. It is also pertinent to note that even the grounds of these second appeal(s) do not render any substantial ground of dissatisfaction except feebly harping that no information is provided by the Respondent. The Appellant is advised that channelizing her angst against the administrative action/inaction of the Respondent by way of filing overlapping RTI Application(s) seeking such indeterminate nature of information, by and large requesting for deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO or to justify their action/inaction is not envisaged under the RTI Act. For a 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 `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) Page 8 of 11 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 Page 9 of 11 domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. Here, it will also not be out of place to refer to the following observation of the Apex Court in the Aditya Bandhopadhyay (supra) matter, particularly in reference to the facts on record in Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/101047 stating that:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. 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 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 a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' Page 10 of 11
9. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission is not in a position to order for any relief in the matter.
10. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 11.03.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Bank of Baroda, Regional Office : Meerut, 407/409, Scheme No. 1, Mangal Pandey Nagar, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Pin - 250004 2 Poonam Bansal Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)