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 : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/647909 +
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/647914 +
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/648442
Rajeev Agarwal .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Regional Manager, SBI,
Regional Business Office (RBO)-2,
Kutchery Road, Prayagraj,
U.P.-211002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
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 appeals:
RTI applications filed on : 12/01/2022 & 12/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 10/02/2022 & N.A.
First appeals filed on : 17/05/2022, 16/05/2022
First Appellate Authority orders : 06/06/2022
2nd Appeals/Complaint dated : 04/09/2022 & 07/09/2022
1
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/647909
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2022 seeking the following information:
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 10.02.2022 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2022. FAA's order dated 06.06.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO with further directions to provide a specific categorical reply against point no. 1 to the Appellant.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/647914 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2022 seeking the following information:2
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 10.02.2022 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.05.2022. FAA's order dated 06.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO with further directions to provide a specific categorical reply against point no. 1 to the Appellant.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/648442 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2022 seeking the following information:3
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.05.2022. FAA's order dated 06.06.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO with further directions to provide a specific categorical reply against point no. 1 to the Appellant.
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.
Respondent: Represented by Urvashi, C.M. Operations 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 10.02.2022 & 05.02.2022. A copy of the reply is enclosed for your ready reference.4
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 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.
Decision:
The instant Appeals of the Appellant have been heard together simultaneously along with a bunch of 11 more cases of the Appellant including two of his complaints and the Commission at the outset based upon a perusal of facts on records and after hearing submissions of the CPIO at length , is of the considered view that the Appellant has filed multiple RTI Applications of such multitude 5 nature of information sought by repeating the nature of information sought merely to pressurize the Respondent public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information.
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the 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 6 authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
In view of the foregoing, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
Nonetheless, the Commission further notes after closely scrutinizing the contents of RTI Applications that replies have been provided by the CPIO in response to speculative queries despite the fact that these are outside the ambit of Section 2 (f) of RTI Act as also the fact that since the entire records /documents were transferred to the Kotak Mahindra Bank (ARC) in 2006 itself ;the factual position of non-availability of records has also been intimated which was appropriate as the said replies are found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
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 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 7 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 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 8 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) 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 is therefore, advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. It is also notable that earlier also , the Appellant never appeared before the CIC ever to represent his cases.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the CPIO is advised to be more cautious in denying information by quoting the appropriate clause of the RTI Act especially in the instant cases, when the records of the information sought stands transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank (ARC) in 2006 itself; the non-availability of records with the 9 Respondent should have been intimated to the Appellant in the first instance itself rather than quoting the wrong clause 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
In view of the above and more particularly the absence of the Appellant during hearing in his earlier cases as well, no scope for action lies in the matter.
Nonetheless, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his 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 / 10