Central Information Commission
Mrbalvir Singhka Kachhwaha vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur on 27 November, 2015
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000065, CIC/MP/A/2015/000298, CIC/MP/A/2015/000324
CIC/MP/A/2015/000392, CIC/MP/A/2015/000438, CIC/MP/A/2015/000563,
CIC/MP/A/2015/000574, CIC/MP/A/2015/000610, CIC/MP/A/2015/001046,
CIC/MP/A/2015/001063
Appellant : Shri Balvir Singh Kachhwaha, Jodhpur
Public Authority : State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jodhpur/Jaisalmer
Date of Hearing : September 23, 2015
Date of Decision : November 27, 2015
Present :
Appellant : Not present
Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, Manager Law at CIC
ORDER
No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000392
1. Vide his RTI application dated 19.8.2014 addressed to the CPIO, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jodhpur, Shri Balvir Singh Kachhwaha sought information regarding Shri Rajesh Singh Gehlot, Dy Manager with reference to his date of posting at DGM Sectt, Zonal Office, Jodhpur, dates, duration, place and designation at three earlier postings, basis of his being posted at Jodhpur Centre along with his medical certificate, while questioning whether rules relating to posting were different for, Shri Rajesh Singh Gehlot and his brother, Bharat Singh Kachhwaha, etc. through 9 points. 1.2. The CPIO gave a point wise reply giving the date of posting of Shri Gehlot at Jodhpur, his three earlier postings and added that Shri Gehlot had been posted at Jodhpur in accordance with the rules of the bank. The provision of medical certificate of 1 Shri Gehlot had been denied u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act and on all other points, the CPIO had duly responded to the appellant.
1.3. Not satisfied, the appellant made an appeal to the first appellate authority who concurred with the decision of the CPIO vide his order dated 31.10.2014. The appellant was still not quite satisfied and appealed to the Commission stating that he had not been provided any response within 30 days of his appeal and also he had not been provided any information regarding the copies of the medical certificates of Shri Gehlot by denying these u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act and that this had been done to create obstacle in his way of getting information. He added that any information which can be given to the Parliament or the State Legislature cannot be denied to anybody. He also questioned the basis of posting of Shri Gehlot and also stated that different yardsticks were being followed for posting of Shri Gehlot and his brother, Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha. His brother was transferred out of Jodhpur on completion of three years. He has also questioned the designation and address of the first appellate authority given by the CPIO in his decision.
1.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant had intimated his inability to attend the hearing. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought various information about transfers and postings of Shri Rajesh Singh Gehlot, an officer of the bank, including his medical certificates. They had duly provided the information regarding the date and place of posting and the dates of posting and duration of his earlier three postings, the tenure for posting at a particular place and also responded that the service rules were applicable to all the officers. They had, however, declined to 2 provide the medical certificate of Shri Gehlot u/s 8(1)(j) as it was his personal information and no larger public interest was involved in the matter. 1.5. The Commission observes that the respondents had provided all disclosable information with reference to the appellant's RTI application excepting what pertained to the third party and came within the purview of the exemption provided u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as this would be an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. The respondents had clearly stated that the transfers and posting were done as per the policy of the bank. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondents. No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000610
2. Vide his RTI application dated 3.9.2014 addressed to the CPIO, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jodhpur, the appellant had sought information regarding the reasons for transfer of officers who had spent more than three years in Jodhpur centre during the period from 29.6.2012 to 31.8.2012 yet were transferred in Jodhpur centre itself, copies of the medical certificate if any officer had been posted in Jodhpur centre during the above mentioned period, why were the officers not transferred on completion of three years and relieved of their charge while his brother, Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha was transferred and relieved immediately on completion of three years and why was his brother not transferred to Jodhpur in spite of the position that he had requested for this transfer on the grounds of his knee operation, etc. through 11 points. 2.1. Vide his response dated 13.10.2014, the CPIO intimated that the information with reference to point 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 had been provided vide their letter dated 4.9.2014 while enclosing a copy of the same. The information sought for in points 7, 8 3 and 11 could not be termed as information as this did not come within the purview of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. And with reference to point 3, the CPIO had intimated that providing the copy of the medical certificate of others was exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information and also no larger public interest was involved in the matter. The appellant, vide first appeal dated 15.10.2014, approached the first appellate authority stating that he had the right to appeal as Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha was his younger brother and the CPIO had intentionally denied information besides information sought was not provided to him within the time bound period. The FAA concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
2.2. Dissatisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant made an appeal to the Commission stating that the information given to him was incorrect. He had not sought any information which was confidential, the information sought also did not come u/s 8(1)(j) and (f) and repeated that the information that can be provided to the Parliament and State Legislature cannot be denied to any individual.
2.3. The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that all disclosable information with reference to the appellant's RTI application, excepting what pertained to the third party and came within the purview of the exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, was provided to the appellant.
2.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the respondents had provided information to the appellant as per available records and permissible under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of.
4 No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000298
3. Vide his RTI application dated 3.9.2014, the appellant sought information as sought in another RTI application with minor changes addressed to CPIO and DGM, SBBJ, Jodhpur while the earlier one had been sent to CPIO and AGM (Region I) in the same Regional Office. The basic thrust of the information being sought remains the same which pertained to the officers under the control of Jodhpur centre who had spent more than three years in Jodhpur between 29.6.2012 to 31.8.2014 in the same office/branch and were transferred in another branch/office of Jodhpur centre itself while his brother who had undergone knee surgery had been transferred out of Jodhpur centre. As in the earlier application of the same date, he had also questioned whether the respondents were the owners of the bank and could make rules as per their own wish.
3.1. The CPIO and FAA had responded to the RTI application and appeal vide their decisions dated 13.10.2014 and 21.11.2014 respectively.
3.2. In his second appeal, the appellant had contended that the respondents had not given him the correct information and that his application dated 19.8.2014 did not have points 10 and 11, therefore, it was not clear as to which application was being responded to while giving information and also as to how he was informed that the information sought for in his letter dated 13.10.2014, had been provided vide their letter 4.9.2014. The CPIO in his response dated 13.10.2014 in respect of the appellant RTI application dated 3.9.2014 enclosed the reply dated 4.9.2014 which had been given with reference to another RTI application seeking similar information. In response to information sought in point 7, 8 and 11 which were different in this particular RTI 5 application, the CPIO had adjudicated that this did not fall within the ambit of information as defined u/s 2(f) to the RTI Act. Point 3 of the present RTI application was also different and therefore was adjudicated separately by the CPIO by stating that the information sought was exempt u/s 8(1)(j) and no larger public interest was involved in the matter. The CPIO had committed a lapse in stating that information sought in point 10 had been provided in his letter dated 4.9.2014 even though the information sought falls in the same category as that of 7, 8 and 11. The appellant had also repeated the same contentions that the information did not come under the exempt category u/s 8(1) (j) of the Act.
3.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant sent two applications of the same date 3.9.2014 having same contents to two different authorities i.e. (i) CPIO and DGM and (ii) CPIO and AGM (Region-1). He stated that the Jodhpur Zonal Office consists of five regions, namely Jaisalmer, Barmer, Jodhpur, Pali and Jalore Regions. Each region is headed by an AGM and he is also the CPIO of the respective region. . The DGM of Jodhpur Zonal Office is the controller of all the regions under his control and designated as FAA under the RTI Act. But the appellant knowingly addressed his RTI application to any of the authority so as to create confusion and havoc. There is no such authority as mentioned by the appellant as CPIO & DGM. Similarly the appellant also preferred two appeals of the same date i.e. 15.10.2014 having same contents to two different authorities i.e. FAA and GM (HR & General Admn) and FAA and DGM as a designated FAA for the Zonal Office, Jodhpur and accordingly the FAA disposed of the appeal vide order dated 21.11.2014. The appellant sought various information about the transfer and posting of his brother Shri 6 Bharat Singh Kachchhawa and other officials of the Bank. He also sought medical certificate of those officials who were transferred or posted on the basis of these certificates. Besides this, he also sought information which was in question-answer form or in the nature of explanation. The CPIO had provided all disclosable information with reference to the appellant's RTI application, excepting what pertained to the third party and came within the purview of the exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, The Commission observes that the appellant had also used unparliamentary language in his RTI applications, which is most uncalled for.
3.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the respondents had provided information to the appellant as per available records and permissible under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001063
4. Vide his RTI application dated 1.12.2014 addressed to CPIO, SBBJ, Jaisalmer, the appellant sought information regarding intimation of the payment of salary, arrears and deductions prepared manually on 13.3.2013 for the period 1.9.2012 to 6.1.2013 and deposited in the salary account of Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha, whether Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha was informed about duplicate payments of salary and deductions, etc and action taken by the bank, etc in writing, unauthorized recovery of some amounts from Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha's savings account instead of his salary account through 6 points.
7 4.1. The CPIO, vide his response dated 22.12.2014, intimated that the information sought pertained to a third party and involved commercial interest and was maintained by them in fiduciary capacity besides being personal information of the third party. The information sought, therefore was considered as exempt u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA who had been approached through appeal dated 17.1.2015 adjudicated the first appeal vide his order dated 27.1.2015, concurring with the decision of the CPIO.
4.2. In his second appeal to the Commission the appellant had stated that the respondents had denied information without any reason. He has a right to know the working systems of the bank, he had not asked for anything which was confidential, the staff members can obtain information about their salary through internet and also that what can be given to the Parliament and State Legislature cannot be denied to him. As in other applications, he sought penalty of Rs. 250/- per day on the CPIO till he gets the information and compensation for himself.
4.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated that the appellant sought the information about the deduction/recovery from the salary of his brother Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha. The information was considered by the CPIO and FAA to be under exempted category as it attracted Sections 8(1)(d) relating to commercial confidence, 8(1)(e) as it was held by the public authority in fiduciary capacity and 8(1)(j), as it was the personal information of one of their officials. Besides, no larger public interest was involved in disclosing the information to the appellant. 4.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the information as sought for by the appellant cannot be provided under the provisions of 8 Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001046
5. Vide his RTI application dated 21.11.2014 addressed to the CPIO, SBBJ, Jodhpur, the appellant sought information through 11 points on the financial loss suffered by his brother, Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha because of non-payment of salary every month during the period Sept 2012 to 6.1.2013 and also financial loss by way of interest on his provident fund and action taken in this respect, etc. 5.1. The CPIO, vide his response dated 9.12.2014, intimated that the information related to third party and was exempt u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and j of the RTI Act and also no larger public interest existed in the matter. The FAA adjudicated on the first appeal vide his order 27.1.2015, concurring with the decision of the CPIO. 5.2. Dissatisfied, the appellant made second appeal objecting to the denial of information u/s 8(1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act and that his first appeal had not been adjudicated properly. No information as well as the attested copies of the documents sought had been provided to him. He also stated that the information sought for was very important and should have been provided to him. As in other applications, he sought penalty of Rs. 250/- per day on the CPIO till he gets the information etc. 5.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated that the appellant sought various information about the salary, arrears, deductions, loans, recovery, calculations of salary and interest in loan accounts of his brother Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha. The information as sought for could not be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information, in view of 9 judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Girish Ramchandra Despande Vs. CIC & others.
5.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and upholds their decision. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000574
6. Vide his RTI application dated 10.9.2014 addressed to the CPIO, SBBJ, Jodhpur, running into 5 pages and having approximately 2500 words, the appellant sought information relating to his brother, Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha who had sought transfer and posting to Jodhpur city centre on the basis of medical certificate through his applications dated 30.7.2012, 1.10.2012, 29.10.2012, 19.4.2013 and 15.12.2013. None of these letters sent by his brother were either replied to or any action taken on these. He sought to know as to why no action was taken and whether on applications sent by other officials also. He also sought reasons for not posting his brother in Jodhpur who met with road accident, etc. through 14 points.
6.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.12.2014 denied information on the grounds of its falling u/s 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act and also because no larger public interest was involved in the matter, through his response dated 10.12.2014. The appellant made an appeal to the first appellate authority stating that he had not received a response from the CPIO even though his application had been received by the respondent. He stated that he had a right to seek information as Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha was his younger brother and added that there is a provision for penalizing the CPIO for delay in replying while seeking for the information and asking for Rs. 250/- per day till he got the information. The FAA, who had been approached before the 10 CPIO's decision, vide his order 21.11.2014, adjudicated that the CPIO should respond to the RTI application and provide information free of cost, while mentioning that the CPIO had intimated that the related documents were not available with AGM-I that is why the response could not be given in time.
6.2. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents the appellant made an appeal to the Commission stating that the information sought for related to the working of the office of respondent one and the respondents were denying information intentionally. He also questioned the application of section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) in denying the information sought by him. As in other applications, he sought penalty of Rs. 250/- per day on the CPIO till he gets the information and compensation for himself. 6.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated that the appellant sought information about the transfer and posting of his brother Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha. The information was sought for by the appellant was denied under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant also referred to telephonic conversation and meetings held between his brother and the AGM/CPIO and sought various information in connection with those conversations. They stated that no records of telephonic conversations were kept by the bank and the same could not be provided. The appellant had no locus standi to seek information relating to third party.
6.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of respondents and finds no reason to disagree with the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of. 11 No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000563
7. Vide his RTI application dated 15.9.2014 addressed to the CPIO, SBBJ, Jaisalmer, the appellant sought information regarding the transfer and posting of his brother, Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha and questioned the action of the AGM in relieving his brother and also that his brother's earlier requests were not considered and no reference was given in relieving order and whether branch officer, Bavri would be responsible for that. He questioned whether the deputy manager level officers considered themselves to be the owners of the bank, etc through 7 major and about 20 sub points within these 7 major points.
7.1. Vide his response dated 15.10.2014, the CPIO responded on 4 points. The reply was not quite specific to the information sought. The FAA vide his order dated 13.11.2014, while adjudicating on the first appeal, ordered the CPIO to provide a point wise reply within 15 days.
7.2. Dissatisfied, the appellant made second appeal to the Commission. The appellant contended that he had not been given the information sought within the stipulated period of 30 days while questioning the relief of his brother in spite of the position that he had made a request for posting in Jodhpur itself. He had not been provided the rules under which a junior officer could relieve a senior officer and he sought information free of cost and strict action against the officers responsible along with Rs. 250/- per day till he got the information.
12 7.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant sought various information about the transfer and posting of his brother Shri Bharat Singh Kachchhawa and other officials of the bank. He also sought medical certificate of those officials who were transferred or posted on the basis of these certificates. The information as sought for by the appellant cannot be provided to under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being third party information. 7.4. The Commission observes that the CPIO had not complied with the directions of the FAA. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide point-wise reply to the appellant, keeping the provisions of the RTI Act in mind, within two weeks of receipt of this order, in case not already sent to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of. No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000324
8. Vide his RTI application dated 10.9.2014 addressed to the CPIO, SBBJ, Jodhpur, the appellant sought information on the request made by his brother vide his application dated 30.6.2012 to retain him in Jodhpur in view of his handicap relating to his knee injury, reasons for not making any change in his posting and posting him in a place where basic medical facilities were not available. Similarly, reasons for not taking any action on the brother's complaint dated 8.2.2013, 19.4.2013, 24.2.2014, 11.3.2014, etc. through which matters like non-availability of medical facilities at Shergarh branch, non availability of knee specialist or orthopedist at Jaisalmer had been brought to the notice of the competent authority, etc. 13 8.1. The CPIO and the FAA had not adjudicated in the matter. In his second appeal to the Commission, the appellant stated the similar grounds as in some of the earlier cases while adding that the CPIO had not responded in the matter and seeking relief in the shape of information/ documents free of cost, penalty on the CPIO and compensation to him.
8.2. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the RTI application dated 10.09.2014 submitted by the appellant to the CPIO/DGM at the address of the Zonal Office, Jodhpur and similar application of the same date was also sent to the CPIO/AGFM at the address of the Zonal Office, Jodhpur. The application dated 10.09.2014 aspersed to the CPIO/AGM was replied to by the CPIO vide letter dated 10.12.2014. The appellant made first appeal dated 16.10.2014 to the FAA. The FAA also disposed of his appeal vide order dated 21.11.2014. Thereafter the appellant also made second appeal against the order of the FAA. The second appeal was registered as case number CIC/MP/A/2015/000574. The respondents stated that the reply of the CPIO and FAA be read as part and parcel of the instant appeal. 8.3. Since the identical issue had been dealt with by the Commission in para 6 above in Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000574, the same decision in the instant appeal shall also apply.
14 No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000438
9. Vide RTI application dated 29.9.2014 addressed to the CPIO, SBBJ, Jodhpur, the appellant sought information whether DGM was on leave from 15.8.2014 to 15.9.2014, if so, the dates on which he was on leave, copies of the office order for giving additional work to AGM, copy of powers and rights which were given to AGM during the period the DGM was on leave, etc through 5 points.
9.1. The CPIO, vide his response dated 20.10.2014, gave a point wise reply giving the period on which the Shri Manjit Singh, DGM, Jodhpur was on leave, that no special order was issued for giving additional work to the AGM, AGM(Region-I) had not been given additional work from 15.8.2014 to 15.9.2014, additional work was given as per the orders of the senior management and that generally during the leave of DGM, excepting the disciplinary and financial powers, all other powers of the DGM could be given. The FAA had not adjudicated in the matter.
9.2. The appellant was not satisfied and made an appeal to the Commission stating that the information sought related to CPIO's office, therefore, the CPIO had not provided correct information. The FAA had not adjudicated on appellant's appeal. He also requested for strict action against respondents so that general public could get information expeditiously and asked for all information along with the documents free of cost and a penalty to CPIO compensation for himself.
9.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant sought the information about the leave of the FAA and the Dy. General 15 Manager of Jodhpur Zone of SBBJ and about the arrangement when he was on leave. He also sought about the arrangement of the disciplinary powers of the DGM in his absence. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.10.2014 gave point-wise reply to the appellant. The appellant's first appeal dated 7.11.2014 was not received. 9.4. The Commission holds that the CPIO had appropriately provided information to the appellant. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000065
10. Vide RTI application dated 19.8.2014 addressed to the CPIO, SBBJ, Jodhpur, the appellant sought information with respect to the date of posting of Shri Prem Singh Sankhla, DGM, BJS Colony, Jodhpur, the details of three places of posting along with the duration of posting in his case, the basis of Shri Sankhla's posting at Jodhpur for more than three years, copy of his medical certificate in case he was posted at Jodhpur on medical grounds, whether the rules of transfer and posting applicable of Shri Sankhla and his brother were different, etc through 9 points. 10.1. The CPIO gave a point wise reply providing information on all the points while denying information on point 4 u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide his order dated 27.10.2014 adjudicated on his appeal while giving additional information on point 3, 4 and 6.
10.2. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant made an appeal to the Commission stating that reference has been made to the policies formulated by the bank in replying to him which is incorrect and the first appellate authority has also adjudicated in favour 16 of the CPIO and questioned the denial of information u/s 8(1)(j) stating that the information could not be denied as what can be provided to the Parliament and state legislature could be provided to him also. The rules regarding bank's rules being applicable to his brother's case differently were also not provided. He added that incorrect information had been provided to him intentionally; therefore, he sought complete information, free of charge, penalty on the respondents and compensation to him.
10.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO vide letter dated 4.09.2014 replied on all the 9 points, except point 4 in which he sought information abut medical certificate of bank's officer, namely Shri Prem Singh Sankhla, which could not be divulged to the appellant under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA again replied on point 4 relating to transfer of Shri Prem Singh Sankhla that the information as sought for was in the form of explanation, which did not fall within the ambit of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. 10.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that information disclosable under the RTI Act and as per available records had been provided to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.
11. The Commission observes that the appellant has tendered a number of RTI applications seeking information in respect of his brother, who is an employee of the bank. Besides, he sought information in respect of other officials pertaining to their 17 transfer/posting, medical certificates etc. As discussed in each case the information sought in most of the cases is personal information. No larger public interest was established by the appellant.
12. The appellant had however repeatedly raised the issue that 'information which cannot be denied to the Parliament cannot be denied to him' with reference to the proviso of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which is being dealt with here to avoid repetition. This issue had been elaborately clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 30.11.2009 in the matter of Union of India Thr. Director Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8396 of 2009 held:
"43. A proviso can be enacted by the legislature to serve several purposes. In Sundaram Pillai Vs. Patte Birman (1985) 1 SSC 591 the scope and purpose of a proviso and an explanation has been examined in detail. Normally, a proviso is meant to be an exception to something in the main enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. A proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to qualify and set at naught, the object of the main enactment Sarthi on "Interpretation of Statutes", referred to in the said judgment, states that a proviso is subordinate to the main section and one of the principles which can be applied in a given case is that a proviso would not enlarge an enactment except for compelling reasons. It is unusual to import legislation from a proviso into the body of the statute. But in exceptional cases a proviso in itself may amount to a substantive provision. The proviso in the present case is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and does not itself create any new right. The purpose is only to clarify that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e. the question of balance between 'public interest in form of right to privacy' and 'public interest in access to information' is to be balanced.
13. The Commission observes that the appellant has not used the rights given to him under the RTI Act with full responsibility, as is apparent from the position that he has submitted ten RTI applications seeking various information regarding the transfer of his 18 brother and in some of these he has sought similar information with minor changes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay had observed that "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 prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." The Commission advises the appellant to use the rights given to him under the RTI Act with full responsibility in future so as not to overburden the public authority and the Commission with frivolous RTI applications, enabling the public authority to use its time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy Secretary & Dy Registrar Tele No. 011-26105027 19 Address of the parties:
Shri Balvir Singh Kachhwaha Pitharamji Ka Bagh Chainpura, Post: Punjala Jodhpur-342394 The Central Public Information Officer State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Zonal Office A-23, Shastri Nagar Jodhpur-342033 The Central Public Information Officer State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Regional Office, (Region-IV), Shiv Marg, Jaisalmer.
The First Appellate Authority State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Zonal Office A-23, Shastri Nagar Jodhpur-342033 20