Central Information Commission
Brijendra Singh vs State Bank Of India on 28 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/105498
Brijendra Singh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
State Bank of India
Agra Main Branch, Chhipitola
Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282001
Date of Hearing : 21/06/2023
Date of Decision : 21/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 02/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 09/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 12/01/2022
Second Appeal dated : 08/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.10.2021 seeking the following information:1
1. Under which law the legatee was asked to submit Probate when the S.B.I. has confirmed that "the registered Will is not required to be Probated in the State of Uttar Pradesh" and Me Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that in the given circumstances "there is no necessity for the legatee to seek Probate" ?
2. Under which law the legatee has been asked to submit Letter of Administration when the Testator has not died intestate and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the given circumstances -there is no necessity for the executor or legatee under a Will to seek Probate or Letters of Administration" ?
3. Under which law the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is not being complied, when Article 141 of the Constitution of India clearly provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all" ?
4. Why 15 para wise counter - Reply of the application dated 07.07.2021 has not been submitted?
5. Why the undersigned has been asked to submit the Forms which have already been submitted as Annexure Nos. to 15 with the registered application date 07.07.2021?
6. Why the provisions of section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 have not been complied in respect of registered application dated 11.8.2021 under section 6(1) of the aforesaid Act ?
7. What is the full name of the A.G.M. who has signed letters dated 13' and 14 September, 2021 of the State Bank of India?
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.12.2021 stating as under: The point - wise reply furnished to the appellant, Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2021. The FAA vide order dated 12-01-2022 has upheld the reply of the CPIO and appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
2The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Chaurasia, Chief Manager, Prayagraj and Shri A K Singh, Regional Manager, Agra present through Video-Conference.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 02.12.2021, point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on records has been provided to the Appellant on his RTI application. The Respondent submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the CPIO is bereft of merit as the RTI Application merely seeks for clarifications and answers to interrogative queries. Nonetheless, the Respondent, vide its letter dated
02.12.2021, has provided point-wise reply/information to the Appellant on his RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
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. 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:
3"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 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 4 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 The Appellant is therefore advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future.
Further, the Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
Hence, no intervention of the Commission at this stage is required in the matter.
The appeal is 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 / 5