Central Information Commission
Garibdas vs Indian Bank on 29 August, 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. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/123385+
CIC/IBANK/A/2024/132599+
CIC/IBANK/A/2024/127772
Garibdas ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Indian Bank,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Sl. No. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 123385 07.05.2024 11.06.2024 26.06.2024 04.07.2024 18.07.2024
2. 132599 20.07.2024 12.08.2024 23.08.2024 20.09.2024 03.10.2024
3. 127772 18.06.2024 12.07.2024 20.07.2024 16.08.2024 23.08.2024
Note: The instant set of appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
similar RTI Application(s) and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 13.08.2025
Date of Decision: 29.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/123385
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Page 1 of 91) "Whether court case is pending for the account no *****5474, If yes, provide the copy of court case
2) Whether there is any injunction order of the court, restraining the bank from dealing with the account no *****5474. If yes, provide the copy of injunction order.
3) Provide the documents on the basis of mode of operation has transferred in the name of Mr. Jagatdas and Mr. Garibdas.
4) How many such accounts are there with your bank, where power of attorney is one of the account holder in joint account.
5) What was the status of Garibdas in account no *****5474 in the year 2016.
6) Whether account no *****5474 is blocked. If yes, provide that documents on the basis of account has blocked."
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1: Query seeking clarification does not fall under the purview of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
2: Query seeking clarification does not fall under the purview of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 3: Query not clear as to what document is sought.
4: Seeking clarification / expression of opinion/drawing inference, etc. does not fall under the purview of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, any such information, even if existing is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
5-6: Similar queries raised in your earlier RTI application dated 09.03.2024 and reply has been provided vide our letter Ref: CO:CSC:RTI:5395:2023-24 dated 26.04.2024. accordingly. Please be guided accordingly."Page 2 of 9
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 04.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.07.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/132599
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"It is requested that as per your letter dated 26.04.2024 Mr. Jagatdas is Manager/Karta and Mr. Garibdas is Power of Attorney in the Account No. *****5474.
Kindly Provide the information Under the RTI Act
1) Provide Copy of banking rule under which one Account holder of a Joint Account is a power of Attorney.
2) How many of the above Types of Accounts are open in Indian Bank."
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1: Query not clear and seeking unspecific /unclear query is not as per the Provisions of RTI Act. Information regarding various products, please visit our Bank's website at www.indianbank.in Seeking clarification/confirmation, etc. does not fall under the purview of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
2: Query not clear and specific. Moreover, no such data can be accessed from the system, which shall disproportionately divert the resources of Public Authority under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 3 of 92.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.10.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/127772
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"It is requested that Indian bank Talwara, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur(PB) has issued a passbook of account no *****5474 in favour of Darbar Baba Ghati operated by either Jagatdas or survivor Garibdas.
CPIO, Indian bank in his RTI reply dated 26-4-2024 stated that Mr. Jagatdas is Manager/Karta and Mr. Garibdas is power of attorney in the account No. *****5474.
Kindly provide the information under the RTI Act:-
1) Provide the supporting documents on the basis of which, bank add Manager/Karta and Power of Attorney in the account no. *****5474.
2) On which date bank add manager/Karta and Power of Attorney in its computer record."
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1: Query not clear as to what document is sought.
2: Query not clear."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 16.08.2024 held as under:
"➤ The appellant has sent a communication dated 18.06 2024 addressed to the CPIO. Indian Bank referring earlier reply furnished by the CPIO dated 26.04.2024 and seeking further information by enclosing IPO bearing n 63F 502634 of Rs 10/-Page 4 of 9
However, the envelope/consignment was addressed to the General Manager (RTI Desk) vide consignment no. RP251889317IN Accordingly, the communication was considered as fresh RTI application and reply was furnished by the CPIO vide letter dated 12.07.2024.
The reply dated 26.04.2024 of the CPIO has been challenged by the appellant in earlier First Appeal dated 17.04.2024 wherein an Order bearing no 029 of 2024-25 dated 16.05.2024 was passed The same was also communicated vide letter ref no CO/CSCE/RTI/A171/2024-25 dated 16 07.2024.
➤ The reply furnished by the CPIO dated 12.07.2024 has been challenged in the present First Appeal. No new information can be sought in the First Appeal and information sought in the nature of seeking clarification / confirmation / expression of opinion/conclusion, etc do not fall under the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.08.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
4. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Sreeja Rani, CM & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The Commission took on record the written submissions received from the Appellant prior to the hearing only in respect of Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/123385 stating as under:
"1 Indian bank replied before banking ombudsman chandigarh that "There is also a civil suit filed in the civil court of judge (Sr. Div) dehra, distt kangra, restraining the bank to allow appellant to manage the account" and on the basis of bank reply, banking ombudsman closed my complaint on 8-9-2016. Copy of banking ombudsman order attached. Query no 1 &2 are related to the bank reply before banking ombudsman.Page 5 of 9
2 Regarding query no 3, earlier the operator of this account was shri Chetan das, Now the operators are Shri jagat das and appellant with mandate of either or survivor as per passbook issued by the bank. Query no 3 is related to the documents on the basis of which operators name changed.
3 CPIO in his letter dated 26-4-2024 at Serial no 4 stated that Appellant is power of attorney holder in this account. Query no 4 is related to how many such accounts are there with the bank, where power of attorney is one of the account operator in joint account.
4 CPIO in his letter dated 26-4-2024 at serial no 8 stated that "Query not clear", whereas query no 6 is quite clear regarding the documents on the basis of which bank blocked this account.
In view of the above facts, second appeal be considered."
6. The Respondent reiterated the replies provided to the Appellant.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate replies to the RTI Application(s) as per the provisions of the RTI Act leaving for no scope of intervention in the matter. 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 Page 6 of 9 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 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) Page 7 of 9 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)
8. Having observed as above, no relief or action is warranted in the matter.
9. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.08.2025 Page 8 of 9 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Indian Bank, CPIO, Corporate Office, No.-66, Rajaji Salai, 5th Floor, Head Office Main Building, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600001
2. Garibdas Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)