Central Information Commission
Shiv Kumar Kanoi vs Central Bank on 28 January, 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. (As per Annexure)
Shiv Kumar Kanoi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. Central Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Mumbai
2. Central Bank of India,
Kolkata
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 601084 18.08.2023 27.09.2023 19.09.2023 16.10.2023 05.01.2024
2. 601083 17.08.2023 12.10.2023 19.09.2023 16.10.2023 05.01.2024
3. 600832 08.08.2023 06.10.2023 09.09.2023 16.10.2023 05.01.2024
4. 600821 04.08.2023 27.09.2023 07.09.2023 16.10.2023 05.01.2024
5. 601098 03.10.2023 Not on 04.11.2023 Not on 08.01.2024
record record
6. 601095 02.10.2023 Not on 03.11.2023 Not on 08.01.2024
record record
7. 601106 17.10.2023 Not on 18.11.2023 Not on 08.01.2024
record record
8. 601104 16.10.2023 Not on 17.11.2023 Not on 08.01.2024
record record
9. 601102 04.10.2023 Not on 04.11.2023 Not on 08.01.2024
record record
10. 600717 08.08.2023 Not on 11.09.2023 Not on 04.01.2024
record record
11. 600715 11.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
Page 1 of 20
12. 600714 11.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
13. 600706 11.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
14. 600539 11.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
15. 600538 11.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
16. 600536 14.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
17. 600533 14.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
18. 600530 14.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
19. 600526 14.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
20. 600723 19.08.2023 Not on 22.09.2023 Not on 04.01.2024
record record
21. 600722 18.08.2023 Not on 22.09.2023 Not on 04.01.2024
record record
22. 600719 16.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 04.01.2024
record record
23. 600351 12.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
24. 600350 06.08.2023 Not on 11.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
25. 600344 06.08.2023 Not on 11.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
26. 600353 12.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
27. 600352 12.08.2023 Not on 19.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
28. 600213 05.08.2023 Not on 07.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
29. 600211 05.08.2023 Not on 11.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
30. 600206 05.08.2023 Not on 11.09.2023 Not on 02.01.2024
record record
Page 2 of 20
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same
subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 27.01.2025
Date of Decision: 27.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kaushik Kumar Kala. DGM (Mumbai) and Mr. V. Devendra Regional Head (Kolkata) attended the hearing through video conference.
2. The respondents while defending their case inter alia submitted that all the details sought by the Appellant in the present RTI Applications were earlier shared with him in the previously filed RTI Applications. They confirmed that all the RTI Applications are similar to the ones which were previously heard and disposed of by the Commission. The respondent (Mumbai) while defending their case inter alia tendered their written submissions dated 27.01.2025. For the sake of clarity, some significant parts of the written submissions of the Respondent(s) are reproduced hereunder:
"...With reference to the hearings scheduled on 27/01/2025 in the matter of RTI applications of Mr. Shiv Kanoi, I, Kausik. Kumar Kala, the present CPIO of Central Bank of India, Business Support Department, Central Office, Mumbai, humbly submit as follows:
1. That the present second appeals have arisen out of the RTI applications of Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi filed on different dates. Details of RTI Reply with respect to above Appeals are as under:
Sr. No. Second Appeal Date of RTI Date of Reply Respective CPIO No.
1. 601084 18.08.2023 27.09.2023 CPIO-Mumbai Page 3 of 20
2. 601083 17.08.2023 12.10.2023 CPIO-Mumbai
3. 600832 08.08.2023 06.10.2023 CPIO-Mumbai
4. 600821 04.08.2023 27.09.2023 CPIO-Mumbai
2. That the reply in respect of each RTI Application as mentioned above in the respective second appeal has been provided to the Appellant.
3. That the point wise reply in respect of RTI Application dt. 18.08.2023 which subject matter of Second Appeal CIC/CBIND/A/2024/601084 is provided vide reply dt. 27.09.2023. That the point wise reply in respect of RTI Application dt. 17.08.2023 which subject matter of Second Appeal CIC/CBIND/A/2024/601083 is provided vide reply dt. 12.10.2023. CPIO has through reply dt. 12.10.2023 referred the earlier RTI reply dt. 13.03.2023 as both the RTIs are similar in nature. Vide reply dt. RTI reply dt. 13.03.2023 and its respective RTI Application is attached herewith as; Annexure-A.
4. That the point wise reply in respect of RTI Application dt. 08.08.2023 which subject matter of Second Appeal CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600832 is provided on 06.10.2023.
5. That the reply in respect of RTI Application dt. 04.08.2023 which subject matter of Second Appeal CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600821 is provided on 27.09.2023. The subject RTI of this Second Appeal is a repetitive RTI Application and Bank has already replied numerous RTI of similar nature.
6. In this regard we further submit the following facts which are pertinent for this appeal:
i) Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi is one of the owners of premises no. P-14 CIT Road, scheme VI M. Kokata 700054. Part of the said premises had been taken on lease by the Bank and ran its erstwhile Beliaghata Branch from the said premises. Thus, the appellant/ complainant was one of the landlords of the rented/ leased premises of the bank.
ii) The appellant/ complainant avails the following three financial assistances from the bank:Page 4 of 20
Sr. Account No. Nature Name of Details of NPA Date OS as No. of Account Account Holder on Facility NPA Date
1. *******5072 OD Shree Balaji Prop- Sri Shiv 29/10/2016 1.02 Industries Kr Kanoi Crore (Bansal) Guarantor- Sri Ajay Kumar Kanoi (Bansal)
2. *******3647 OD Bansal & Co Sri Shiv Kr 28/02/2017 0.50 Kanoi (Bansal) Crore & Sri Ajay Kumar Kanoi (Bansal)
3. *******4465 Cent Sri Shiv Kr Sri Shiv Kr 28/02/2018 0.76 Rental Kanoi Kanoi (Bansal) Crore (Bansal) & & Sri Ajay Sri Ajay Kumar Kanoi Kumar Kanoi (Bansal) (Bansal)
iii) Out of the above-mentioned loan accounts, dues of the term loan account mentioned at serial no. 3 gets adjusted from the monthly rent of the leased premises.
iv) Thus, the appellant/ complainant is at one hand is one of the landlords of the rented/ leased premises of the bank and on the other is a borrower of the bank, who avails loans Page 5 of 20 upto the limit of 2.28 crores. Only a portion of its dues get adjusted from the monthly rent of the premises.
v) That during the lease period there arose dispute regarding payment of municipal tax, commercial surcharge and service tax.
vi) At the same time the loan accounts of the appellant/ complainant has been irregular due to non-payment of dues.
vii) The appellant/ complainant has raised his dispute before the Court of Law also. Appellant/ complainant filed a writ petition against the bank before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in 2015 and were recorded as W.P No. 27365 (W) of 2015. In the said matter, Vide order dated 11.03.2016 the Hon'ble Justice Debangshu Basak disposed the petition by holding inter alia that the appellant/ complainant cannot be allowed to receive payment from the bank on account of rates and taxes as well as commercial surcharge when the petitioner has not paid the same. A copy of the order dated 11.03.2016 passed in this matter is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B
viii) It is also important to mention that Bank has initiated recovery action under the prevailing laws. Possession of the property has been taken under Sec. 13 (4) of SARFASI Act 2002 on 31.10.2020. The recovery action initiated under SARFAESI Act has been challenged by Mr. Kanoi in the DRT - 3 Kolkata and matter is pending at DRT.
ix) The appellant/ complainant started making applications under RTI Act when the dispute as mentioned above arose. Starting from 2015 till date the appellant/ complainant has filed numerous RTI applications to its Kolkata Office and Mumbai Office, the number of which is more than 600. If the applications made prior to 2015 are taken into account, the count will be much more.
x) In all the RTI applications the appellant complainant has been demanding information and documents relating to the same dispute even when such documents and information are already with the appellant/ complainant.
Page 6 of 20xi) That even thereafter the appellant/ complainant kept on making RTI applications before this Bank demanding same set of information and documents.
xii) Besides making numerous applications on the issue of payment of municipal taxes. service taxes and its reimbursements, the appellant/ complainant has been making continuous complaints before the Government of India through its Public Grievance Portal, Daksh Portal of RBI etc. on the self-same issue. The bank replied the grievances on the basis of its clear stand that the bank is agreeable to pay/reimburse the complainant for the amount he has paid as per the terms of the contract/ agreement, if he produces valid proof and/ or evidence of such payment made by him to the concerned authority. Since he could not produce any such proof or evidence. bank could not pay/ reimburse the amount claimed by him.
8. It is also admitted that Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi have visited our Mumbai office on 14.06.2022 as per order dated 07.06.2022 of Hon'ble CIC in the following second appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2020/111535, CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112065, CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112064 & CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112063 (Shiv Kumar Kanoi v. CPIO:
Central Bank of India Nariman Point, Mumbai).
9. On 14.06.2022 during the inspection of documents Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi have received copy of the documents and all the proceeding is minutised on 14.06.2022 in the presence Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi. Annexure- C
10. Further he had asked for some more documents. Accordingly, we have supplied the documents vide our letter dated 19.07.2022. Annexure-D
11. Mr. Kanoi have also inspected the files at Kolkata office. This is clear from the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Commission in Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2020/101437 (Shiv Kumar Kanoi vs. CPIO Central Bank of India, Kolkata). In that matter one of the issues raised by him was related to inspection. The Hon'ble Commission, vide its order dated 25.05.2022 has observed as under: Quote Page 7 of 20 "The applicant admitted that he had inspected the relevant record three times.
The appellant during the course of hearing submitted that complete record were not offered for inspection however, he failed to specify the documents/files which were not offered for inspection. Perusal of records further reveals that the applicant had grievance with regard to settlement of his loan which may be raised before an appropriate forum. In view of the above and the inspection having being given to the appellant, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed." Unquote 12 . Mr. Kanoi have also filed the non-compliance complaint dated 02.07.2022 in Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2020/111535, CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112065, CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112064 & CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112063 (Shiv Kumar Kanoi vs. CPIO Central Bank of India, Kolkata). In that matter also issue raised by Appellant related to inspection. Hon'ble Commission, vide its order dated 14.11.2022 has observed as under:
Quote "Since the appellant expressed dissatisfaction, the Commission ordered the CPIOS to allow inspection of the records. However, it is seen that the appellant in case of inspection at Kolkata, instead of inspecting records as per orders of the Commission, made it conditional and adopted a different path. He did not deny inspection of records at Mumbai, but made some allegations. The Commission already recorded that point- wise reply had been provided by the Respondents. As to the non-compliance of orders of the Commission to allow inspection of records, the Commission observes that the appellant chose not to inspect the records at Central Bank India, Kolkata and inspected the records at Mumbai. Since he chose not to inspect the records, his complaint alleging non-compliance on the part of respondent is misplaced. Under the circumstances, there is no non-compliance on the part of the CPIOs and there is no merit in the complaint of the appellant. Hence the complaint of non-compliance of appellant is rejected and case is closed"
Unquote Page 8 of 20
13. That on previous occasions also second appeals of the appellant/ complainant came up before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission on 21.02.2023 and 22.02.2023 where Hon'ble CIC has directed to Bank to give fresh reply to appellant/complainant.
14. In compliance of the said order all information as directed by the Hon'ble commission were provided to the appellant/ complainant by the Bank vide letter no. OPER/KOLKNRO/2022-23/03/257 dt. 15.03.2023. Letter to appellant /complainant dt. 15.03.2023 attached as Annexure-E
15. Through letter dt. 15.03.2023 Bank again provided the Appellant/Complainant various document like a) Signed Copy of Minutes dt. 14.02.2020, b) Newspaper Advertisement for alternate premises for Beliaghata Branch, c) Demand Notice under Sect 13 (2) of SARFEASI Act d) Internal Calculation Sheets and reply of Advocates letters etc.
16. With so many RTI applications, including the present ones, upon which the present second appeals has arisen, the appellant/ complainant has been making the same and similar queries relating to payment of taxes, and further communications on the same issue with other authorities which is admittedly a subject of dispute.
17. The appellant/ complainant in most of the queries had sought confirmation/clarification from the Bank based on certain acts and replies received by him. However, such confirmation was not covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act and the appellant was accordingly point wise- replied by the erstwhile CPIO.
18. The repeated and frivolous RTI applications are being made by the appellant complainant to fulfil his personal vengeance against the bank.
19. Reply of the numerous RTI applications by the bank causes huge wastage of its manpower and resources and also put its officers to extreme harassment. Many of its officers are forced to devote their time and energy in replying to the frivolous applications, which ultimately affects the Bank's productivity and efficiency in its core activity That on the basis of the above submission, it is humbly prayed by the bank that the present second appeal may be disposed upholding the order of the CPIO. The bank further prays before Page 9 of 20 the Hon'ble commission to pass necessary direction upon the appellant/ complainant not to make RTI Applications on the same issue.
20. The appellant is raising the issues again and again multiple times instead of raising the issues in appropriate forum. Sir, in this connection I humbly refer to the decision of the Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi in matter of Naresh Sharma Vs Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Decision No. CIC/TIOFR/ A/2019/ 11007, 142877, 129484,139840,140503,144699, CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/102629, CIC/TIOFR/C/2019/147408, CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/109136, CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/137324 (Decided on 29.01.2021) wherein observation of the Hon'ble CIC is as under: Quote "That the commission notes that the information as per available record is provided by the CPIO against an RTI application, hence no further intervention of the commission is warranted in the matter. The instant matter is a glaring example of misuse of RTI mechanism where it is evident that a never ending process of seeking information is resorted to by the information seeker by manufacturing a series of queries based on the response provided by the CPIO. With the above observation, the present Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly." Unquote
21. Here it is also important to refer the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Anr. [2011 (8) SCC 497] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: Quote "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." Unquote
22. It is submitted that Mr. Kanoi have also previously filed several Second Appeals before this forum contending that desired information is not provided to him. In this regard it pertinent to refer the Order dt. 20.12.2023 by the Hon'ble CIC Delhi, wherein this forum Page 10 of 20 have dismissed 13 Second Appeals against Bank and strongly advised him not to file repetitive RTI Application on same issue and observed as under:
The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere inter play of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission. He is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter.
Further, it is humbly submitted that Mr. Shiv Kumar is not complying with this order and regularly filing the repetitive/similar on same issue.
23. Mr. Kanoi has filed Writ Petition WPA-11481 of 2024 and prayed for several relief. Same was heard by the Hon'ble High Court on 24.07.2024. After hearing both the side, Hon'ble High Court disposed of the above Writ Petition without giving any relief to Mr. Kanoi. Hon'ble High Court has further observed that, Declaration of documents to be false and fabricated cannot be passed by Writ Court as matter requires elaborate evidence.
In respect of allegation of bribe, issuing false and fabricated letters and withdrawal of settlement by Bank, petitioner is always at liberty to take appropriate steps under the applicable laws, which he has so far chosen not to do.
Learned DRT shall dispose of the pending proceeding expeditiously within three months.
Order dt. 24.07.2024 is attached as: Annexure-F. In view of the above submission, it is humbly prayed that all the Second Appeal filed by Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi are liable to be dismissed.
Page 11 of 20As Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi is in the habit of filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same issue and he had filed more than 500 RTI Application between 31.12.2022 and 31.12.2024 in Mumbai Office only. Therefore, it is humbly prayed before the Hon'ble Commission to pass necessary directions upon the appellant/ complainant not to make numerous RTI Applications on the same issue, which unnecessary diverts the resources of the Public Authority..."
The respondent (Kolkata) while defending their case inter alia tendered their written submissions dated 22.01.2025. For the sake of clarity, some significant parts of the written submissions of the Respondent(s) are reproduced hereunder:
"...With reference to the hearings scheduled on 27.01.2025 in the matter of RTI application of Mr Shiv Kanoi, I, V. Devendra, the present CPIO of Central Bank of India, Kolkata North Region, humbly submit as follows:
That the present second appeals has arisen out of the RTI applications of Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi various dates. Details of RTI Reply with respect to above Appeals are as under:
Sr. Second Date of RTI Date of Respective CPIO
No. Appeal Reply
No.
1. 601084 18.08.2023 27.09.2023 CPIO-BSD CO Mumbai
2. 601083 17.08.2023 12.10.2023 CPIO-BSD CO Mumbai
3. 600832 08.08.2023 06.10.2023 CPIO-BSD CO Mumbai
4. 600821 04.08.2023 27.09.2023 CPIO-BSD CO Mumbai
5. 601098 03.10.2023 06.01.2024 CPIO-Kolkata North
6. 601095 02.10.2023 06.01.2024 CPIO-Kolkata North
7. 601106 17.10.2023 06.01.2024 CPIO-Kolkata North
8. 601104 16.10.2023 06.01.2024 CPIO-Kolkata North
9. 601102 04.10.2023 06.01.2024 CPIO-Kolkata North
10. 600717 08.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
11. 600715 11.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
12. 600714 11.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
13. 600706 11.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
14. 600539 11.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
15. 600538 11.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
Page 12 of 20
16. 600536 14.08.2023 13.12.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
17. 600533 14.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
18. 600530 14.08.2023 13.12.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
19. 600526 14.08.2023 13.12.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
20. 600723 19.08.2023 13.12.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
21. 600722 18.08.2023 13.12.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
22. 600719 16.08.2023 13.12.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
23. 600351 12.08.2023 13.12.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
24. 600350 06.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
25. 600344 06.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
26. 600353 12.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
27. 600352 12.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
28. 600213 05.08.2023 13.12.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
29. 600211 05.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
30. 600206 05.08.2023 13.11.2023 CPIO-Kolkata North
1. Mr. Kanoi have inspected the files our Kolkata office. This is clear from the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Commission in Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2020/101437 (Shiv Kumar Kanoi vs. CPIO Central Bank of India, Kolkata). In that matter one of the issues raised by him was related to Inspection. The Hon'ble Commission, vide its order dated 25.05.2022 has observed as under: Quote "The applicant admitted that he had inspected the relevant record three times. The appellant during the course of hearing submitted that complete record were not offered for inspection however, he failed to specify the documents/files which were not offered for inspection. Perusal of records further reveals that the applicant had grievance with regard to settlement of his foan which may be raised before an appropriate forum. In view of the above and the inspection having being given to the appellant, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed." Unquote
2.Mr. Kanoi have also filed the non-complaince complaint dated 02.07.2022 in /Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2020/111535, CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112065, CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112064 & CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112063 (Shiv Kumar Kanoi vs. CPIO Central Bank of India, Kolkata) In that matter also, issue raised by Appellant related to Page 13 of 20 inspection. Hon'ble Commission, vide its order dated 14.11.2022 has observed as under:
Quote "Since the appellant expressed dissatisfaction, the Commission ordered the CPIOs to allow inspection of the records. However, it is seen that the appellant in case of inspection at Kolkata, instead of inspecting records as per orders of the Commission, made it conditional and adopted a different path. He did not deny inspection of records at Mumbai, but made some allegations. The Commission already recorded that point- wise reply had been provided by the Respondents. As to the non-compliance of orders of the Commission to allow inspection of records, the Commission observes that the appellant chose not to inspect the records at Central Bank India, Kolkata and inspected the records at Mumbai. Since he chose not to inspect the records, his complaint alleging non-compliance on the part of respondent is misplaced. Under the circumstances, there is no non-compliance on the part of the CPIOs and there is no merit in the complaint of the appellant. Hence the complaint of non-compliance of appellant is rejected and case is closed." Unquote
3. The appellant is raising the issues again and again multiple times instead of raising the issues in appropriate forum. Sir, in this connection I humbly refer to the decision of the Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi in matter of Naresh Sharma Vs Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Decision No. CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/ 11007, 142877, 129484,139840,140503,144699, CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/102629,CIC/TIOFR/C/2019/147408,CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/109136,CI C/TI OFR/A/2020/137324 (Decided on 29.01.2021) wherein observation of the Hon'ble CIC is as under: Quote "That the commission notes that the information as per available record is provided by the CPIO against an RTI application, hence no further intervention of the commission is warranted in the matter. The instant matter is a glaring example of misuse of RTI mechanism where it is evident that a never ending process of seeking information is resorted to by the information seeker by manufacturing a series of queries based on the Page 14 of 20 response provided by the CPIO. With the above observation, the present Second Appeal stands disposed of accordingly." Unquote
4. Here it is also important to refer the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Anr.
2011 (8) SCC 497 where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: Quote "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." Unquote
5. It is pertinent to mention that Mr. shiv Kanoi has availed financial assistances from bank which has become NPA due to non-payment of loan amount by Mr. Shiv Kanoi. For recovery of Loan amount Bank has initiated legal action DRT and also under SARFAESI act and Mr. Shiv kanoi has also made objection/filed counter claim in SARFAESI Matter. Case is still pending for adjudication.
6. It is also pertinent to mention that he has been publishing fake and fabricated news in media so Bank has filed a defamation case No. 201/2021 against him in Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta which is pending. He is filing numerous similar RTI applications to different offices of the Bank and also sending number of mails to the said offices of Bank as well as authorities of Government of India on daily basis only to harass the Bank and pressurize the Bank Official to not pursue legal action initiated against him.
7. It is also submitted that he has filed more than 600-RTI-applications-on-same ground. In-all-the RTI applications he has been demanding the same set of information and documents which either have already been provided to him or are already in his possession.
8. The appellant/complainant has been using the numerous RTI Applications for his self- interest and none of his numerous applications involves any public interest.
Page 15 of 209. The repeated and frivolous RTI applications are being made by the appellant/ complainant to fulfill his personal vengeance against the bank.
10. Reply of the numerous RTI applications by the bank causes huge wastage of its manpower and resources and also put its officers to extreme harassment. Many of its officers are forced to devote their time and energy in replying to the frivolous applications, which ultimately affects the bank's productivity and efficiency in its core activity.
11. It is submitted that Mr. Kanoi have also previously filed several Second Appeals before this forum contending that desired information is not provided to him. In this regard it pertinent to refer the Order dt. 16.04.2024 by the Hon'ble CIC Delhi, wherein this forum have dismissed 12 Second Appeals against Bank and observed as under:
"The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere inter play of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission. He is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter."
Further, it is humbly submitted that Mr. Shiv Kumar is not complying with this order and regularly filing the RTI on same issue.
In view of the above submission, it is humbly prayed that all the Second Appeals filed by Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi are liable to be dismissed.
As Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi is in the habit of filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same issue hence it is further humbly prayed before the Hon'ble Commission to pass necessary directions upon the appellant/complainant not to make numerous RTI Applications on the same issue, which unnecessary diverts the resources of the Public Authority..."
Page 16 of 203. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent, perusal of records and upon thorough consideration of the submissions made during the hearing proceedings, observes that the respondents have reiterated and reaffirmed that all the 30 RTI applications listed for hearing today are identical to those previously heard and disposed of by the Commission. After careful perusal of the available records and in light of the respondents' submissions, the Commission concludes that its earlier decision on the identical subject matter heard by the bench on 18.12.2023 and decided on 20.12.2023 vide File No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2021/651583/CBIND + 12 and subsequently another matter heard by the bench on 19.04.2024, decided on 23.04.2024 vide File No. CIC/CBIND/A/2023/656470 + 13 shall apply uniformly to the present cases under consideration. Subsequent to the decision of 20.12.2023 and 23.04.2024, the Commission reiterates the square applicability of the same with respect to a series of instant multiple appeal(s) of the Appellant on similar matters.
In view of the above, the Commission finds no further grounds to revisit the previously decided issues and, therefore, directs the respondent authority not to entertain any future RTI applications from the same appellant concerning the same subject matter. This decision aims to prevent repetitive filings and ensure administrative efficiency in handling RTI applications. The appeal(s) are accordingly dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 27.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 17 of 20 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Central Bank of India, DGM (BSD) & CPIO, Central Office, Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021
2. The CPIO Central Bank of India, CPIO, Regional Office: Kolkata (North), Central Bank Building, 4th Floor, 33, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, W. B.-700001
3. Shiv Kumar Kanoi Page 18 of 20 Annexure Sr. No. File No.
1. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/601084
2. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/601083
3. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600832
4. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600821
5. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/601098
6. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/601095
7. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/601106
8. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/601104
9. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/601102
10. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600717
11. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600715
12. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600714
13. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600706
14. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600539
15. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600538
16. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600536
17. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600533
18. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600530
19. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600526
20. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600723
21. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600722
22. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600719
23. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600351
24. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600350
25. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600344
26. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600353
27. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600352
28. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600213 Page 19 of 20
29. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600211
30. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/600206 Page 20 of 20 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)