Central Information Commission
Salim Ahmed vs Bank Of Baroda on 22 January, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2022/154858
Salim Ahmed ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 03.09.2022 FA : 14.10.2022 SA : 23.11.2022
CPIO : 04.10.2022 FAO : 11.11.2022 Hearing : 17.01.2024
Date of Decision: 19.01.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.09.2022 seeking information through 34 points as under:
1. "NPA A/c M/S vaibhav Laxmi Impex pvt Ltd, Property bearing no 5596 to 5598,5621 to 5624, plot no 34, ward-XIV, pvt no-3, second Floor, without roof right, Basti harphool singh, sadar thana Road, Delhi-110006, has been auctioned in 2018, as per Sarfaesi Act 2002 sub section 9 or not, who was highest bidder.
2. From 03/08/2018 to 20/08/2022 Any investigation done or not by Chief Vigilance Officer General manager, CEO and MD bank of Baroda regarding my complaint cheating and misleading.Page 1 of 6
3. Provide me the bank officers name with designation who received documents (possession receipt and previous property chain) from highest bidder my mother Mrs Tasleem.
4. Provide me witnesses name with details who were available when bank officers received above said documents from highest bidder Tasleem, at bank of Baroda branch Ashok Vihar Branch.
5. Above said paper received from my mother letter (enclosed page no (1) this paper drafted by your bank officers or not...." etc
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. "Property bearing no. 5596 to 5598, 5621 to 5624, plot no. 34, ward-XIV, Pvt. No. 3, Second floor, without roof right, Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Thana Road, New Delhi-110006 was auctioned under the provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002 on 12.06.2018 and Mrs. Tasleem w/o Wazir Ahmed was declared the highest bidder, as mentioned in your RTI Application point no. 3.
2. Regarding your complaint sent to the MD & CEO we have already informed vide letter dated 20.12.2021 as under:
"The ARM Branch vide its letter Dt. 30.04.2019 informed that the branch conducted a meeting with the Auction Purchaser Mrs. Tasleem attended by her representative Sh. Salim Ahmed (yourself) on 22.04.2019 to conclude the issue and reach a certain decision w.r.t the sale However, the meeting ended without any fruitful conclusion. Moreover, Auction Purchaser Mrs. Tasleem filed a Securitization Application No SA/118/2019 in Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal on 19.02.2019, which is still pending for disposal."
3. n this connection the APIO/Branch head of the concerned branch has informed that there is a copy of letter dated 30.07.2018 from Mrs. Tasleem addressed to AGM Ashok Vihar. The said letter does not bear the name of the officer why received the letter rather the officer who has received the said letter has only his/her initial.
Page 2 of 64. In this connection the APIO/Branch head of the concerned branch has informed that there is no such record available with the branch...." etc
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 11.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.11.2022.
5. The Appellant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Sudhakar Bhai Tripathi, AGM & CPIO along with Praveen Upadhyay, Law Officer, BOB, Baroda attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant submitted that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, particularly on point no.2 of the RTI Application, where a mention of a certain letter of 20.12.2021 has been made, but no such letter has been received by him. He further stated that the name of the bank officer sought for at point no.3 has also not been provided deliberately and for points where information has been stated to be not available, it is firm belief that such records ought to be maintained by the Bank. Lastly, the Appellant lamented that the investigation in his matter has been going on since the year 2018.
7. The Respondent at the outset submitted that the Appellant has sought for information on more than 30 points and yet, due efforts were made to provide him with the available information and answers, all of which was also upheld later by the FAA. It was further agreed to provide a copy of the letter of 20.12.2021 as referred to in their reply to point no.2 of the RTI Application to the Appellant.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that, the information sought for in the RTI Application is largely in the form of expressing conjecture and seeking confirmation of speculative statements, thus failing to strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the RTI Application does not even conform to the word limit prescribed under Page 3 of 6 Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. 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.
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) 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 Page 4 of 6 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 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. Having observed as above, the Commission does not find any scope of intervention in the matter as the CPIO has provided a point-wise reply with adequate clarifications and permissible information. As a matter of limited relief, considering the contention of the Appellant during the hearing, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the reference letter mentioned in their reply to point no.2 of the RTI Application. The said information shall be provided free of cost by the CPIO to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Page 5 of 610. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 19.01.2024
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala (सुमन बाला)
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Bank of Baroda, Nodal CPIO
RTI Cell, Zonal Office:(New Delhi Zone),
Bank Of Baroda Bldg., 16, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Salim Ahmed
Page 6 of 6