Central Information Commission
Rajeev Agarwal vs State Bank Of India on 27 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : As per Annexure
Rajeev Agarwal .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
State Bank of India, RBO-
Allahabad-11, 10-C, Kutchery
Road, Prayagraj, U.P.-211002.
2. The CPIO,
Regional Manager, SBI,
Regional Business Office-2,
Kutchery Road, Prayagraj,U.P.-211002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 26/07/2023
Date of Decision : 26/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal(s):
Appeal no. RTI CPIO's reply First Appeal FAA's order Second
Application dated dated Appeal
dated dated
625064 14.11.2021 13.12.2021 16.01.2022 08.02.2022 03.05.2022
646170 16.01.2022 N.A. 14.05.2022 06.06.2022 25.08.2022
646388 03.02.2022 N.A. 14.05.2022 13.06.2022 26.08.2022
645984 03.02.2022 N.A. 14.05.2022 13.06.2022 24.08.2022
646990 14.01.2022 N.A. 14.05.2022 13.06.2022 30.08.2022
1
646992 16.01.2022 N.A. 14.05.2022 13.06.2022 28.08.2022
649336 14.01.2022 N.A. 15.05.2022 06.06.2022 12.09.2022
649543 12.01.2022 N.A. 15.05.2022 06.06.2022 13.09.2022
650674 23.12.2021 N.A. 19.05.2022 06.06.2022 18.09.2022
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/625064
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.11.2021 seeking the following information:
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.12.2021 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2022. FAA's order, dated 08.02.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.2
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646170 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.01.2022 seeking the following information:
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2022. FAA's order, dated 06.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646388 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.01.2022 seeking the following information:
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2022. FAA's order dated 06.06.2022 held that information has already been provided to the Appellant.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/645984 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2022 seeking the following information:3
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2022. FAA's order dated 13.06.2022 held that information has already been provided to the Appellant.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646990 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.01.2022 seeking the following information:
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2022. FAA's order dated 06.06.2022 held that reply has already been provided by the CPIO on 11.02.2022 and further also resent a copy of said reply to the Appellant.4
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646692 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.01.2022 seeking the following information:
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2022. FAA's order dated 06.06.2022 held that reply has already been provided by the CPIO on 11.02.2022 and further resent a copy of said reply to the Appellant.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/649336 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2022 seeking the following information:5
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 05.02.2022 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.05.2022. FAA's order dated 06.06.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/649543 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2022 seeking the following point-wise information:6
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 05.02.2022 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2022. FAA's order dated 06.06.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/650674 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2022 seeking the following information:7
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 05.02.2022 and denied the information by invoking Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2022. FAA's order dated 06.06.2022 held that information has already been provided by the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondents: Urvashi, C.M. Operations & Rep. of CPIO present through video- conference.
The written submissions in response to each instant case filed by the CPIO prior to hearing are taken on record.
The sum and substance of the averred written submissions are reproduced below in verbatim -
"....reply was sent to the applicant dated 13.12.2022, 11.01.2022, 05.02.2022 & 11.02.2022 A copy of the reply is enclosed for your ready reference.
3. From 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 alone, 37+ online and 18 + offline RTI requests have been raised by Shri Agarwal seeking information related M/s Deo Dutt Engg. The unit M/s Deo Dutt Engg. Works enjoyed credit facilities with State Bank of India. Credit facilities sanctioned to the unit turned sticky and to recover our dues, we moved to DRT where sales of the assets of the borrowing unit was awarded. To get our dues recovered, DRT awarded selling of assets of Deo Dutt Engg. Works to Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) Kotak Mahindra Bank. As per the agreement executed between Kotak Mahindra Bank (Assigner) and SBI (Assignor) on 29/03/2006, under noted was the terms of agreement Central Public Information Officer And Regional Manager "the Assignor Debts under the all Financial the Assignor's right, title, interest and benefit in and to the Debts and all the rights, title and 8 interest of the whatsoever), or by way of Instruments (If any), whether by way of first or second charge, if any (in any form and in any manner and intent that the Assignee hypothecation hereafter or mortgage, or by way of absolute or pari passu charge, absolutely and forever to the end entitled shall be the full and absolute legal and beneficial owner thereof and legally and beneficially to demand, receive and recover the Debts in its own name and right."
4. As per information furnished above, our entire right over title, asset, debt etc was transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank..."
The Rep. of CPIO while summing up his arguments again emphasized on the fact that the Appellant, Director of the company M/s Deo Dutt Engg had availed credit facilities for the firm which was later declared as NPA and transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank (ARC) way back in 2006 as a sequel to the award proceeding by DRT . Now, SBI has no records / information available and therefore, they are unable to provide any clarification/records sought by the Appellant. Nonetheless, reply on each occasion has been provided to the Appellant.
Here, the Commission would like to recall its latest earlier detailed decision on the similar matter of the Appellant passed on 22.05.2023 vide File Nos. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/604901 and others with the following observations -
"....The Commission based on a perusal of records and submissions made by the Respondent observes that the latter vide its letters dated 28.10.2021, 06.09.2021, 30.12.2021 and 23.12.2021 has categorically informed the Appellant/Complainant on all his above mentioned RTI applications that no such information is available in their records. Nonetheless, the Respondent informed that 63 accounts of M/s. Dev Dutt Engineering were assigned to the Kotak Mahindra Asset Reconstruction Company in the year 2006 and the record retention policy for such documents/information is 10 years, therefore, they are unable to provide any information to the Appellant/Complainant.
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant/Complainant with the reply provided by the CPIO is bereft of merit as the RTI Application merely seeks for clarifications and answers to interrogative queries.
The Commission is of the view that the CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the Appellant/Complainant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected 9 to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant/Complainant 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 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 10 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 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) 11 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/Complainant is therefore, advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future.
Further, the Appellant/Complainant has filed 6 complaints out of 10 cases which are mentioned above under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any malafides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Further, the Appellant/Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further....."
12Additionally, in the backdrop of the Appellant's repetitive RTI Applications, it will not be out of place to refer to the following observations of a former bench of the Commission with respect to another bunch of the Appellant filed against the Indian Overseas Bank decided on 23.03.2023 vide File No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2021/634128 + 14 cases:
"...The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 20.03.2021. Besides, nobody prevented the appellant to submit signed application or present himself before the bank with KYC documents enabling the authorities to identify the information seeker and take appropriate action. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed....."
Similarly, another bunch matter of 10 cases of the Appellant against the SBI revolving around the same gamut of information sought which was decided on 09.02.2023 vide case file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2021/663051 + Others with the following decision:
"...the respondent vide its letters dated 01.10.2021, 15.07.2021 and 06.09.2021 has categorically informed the appellant on all his above mentioned RTI applications that no such information is available in their records. Further, the appellant has not furnished any particulars of account number, etc. in order to trace any kind of information. Nonetheless, the respondent has informed that the said account of M/s. Dev Dutt Engineering was assigned to the Kotak Mahindra Bank in the year 2006 and since no account details, etc. were mentioned in the RTI application/second appeals, therefore, they are unable to provide any information to the appellant.
14. The Commission is of the view that the respondent CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.
15. The Commission observes that complete point-wise reply/information has been provided to the appellant and the Commission is satisfied with the 13 action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI applications of the appellant.
16. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter..."
Decision:
The foregoing stance can be more so exemplified in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] 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 prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' 14 Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' xxx ...The Appellant(s) are further advised to not cause a mockery of the spirit of the RTI Act by unnecessarily flooding the public authority with RTI Applications on the same matter involving no larger public interest. It is abundantly made clear that any number of RTI Applications on the same issue will not alter the information that was held and parted with by the Respondents."
Adverting to the foregoing observations, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant has been rebuked by multiple benches of the Commission in the past with respect to different public authorities for the apparent misuse of the RTI Act on his part yet the Appellant appears to have not appreciated the said observations, which is rather unfortunate and appalling to note.
While dismissing the instant Appeals as bereft of merit, the Commission again advises the Appellant to abstain from the repeated misuse of the RTI Act. The 15 Appellant is furthermore advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same issue as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed.
Nonetheless, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of their respective written submissions free of cost with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
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 / 16 Annexure S. No File No.
1. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/625064
2. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646170
3. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646388
4. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/645984
5. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646990
6. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646992
7. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/645984
8. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/649336
9. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/649543
10. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/650674 17