Central Information Commission
Atul Adhikary vs State Bank Of India on 31 January, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
econd Appeal No. € Mr, Aral Adhikary VERSUS arg CPIO art i/Respondent : tate Bank of India RBO-3 Sout h 24 Paras iganias, 3°! Floor sibs ddhii Bhawan, 34 JLN Road Kolkata- 70007 | Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:- RYT: [5-06-2019 PA 2 16-07-2019 | SA » 24-09-2019 CPLO : 12-07-2019 FAO : 30-07-2019 Hearing: 21-01-2022 ORDER
Seeds . The appellant fled an application under the Right to Information Act O05 (RTL Act} before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) State Bank of India, Kolkata, The appellant seeking information is as under:
Peseription of Pefermation Sought SREY Sahicnce no, HODTORTY ae FRSISTAS and | + Daring my ECS payment af Rs.Ghie under NACH Segue ence me © have gishoroursd my payment ' anather NACH sequence whard Ber nc ie mot available with ine you have aco Ss ONY BANS showin Ine the PEASOR thal douuments aon nee aa ods e dycuments required in detail agat AS SE shane. S ander LECT eoliey no tees, £ dkata Kasha Branch wy Bevo ewen DAIS Royth F4 B as The CPIO vide letter dated 12-07-2019 has given reply to the appellant, Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 16- O7-2019 and requested that the miformation should be provided to him. The pan Thhett Oe awe Pace lof 4 Poy) SOUugh mt Pees ? < NTR RAGES VVaa eines SACRE.
3 "This sparsell . 3 4 tye j . i eyxghs sab. we ihe appela nk aitended ihe hearing TYOUR SN AMG ED-oa Rakesh Sinha. CPYCY Reotonal Manacer at a thy awesi: Sinha, CREO! Reopional Manager attended the
4. The appellant reiterated the contents of His RT] Application and Pas submitted that the desire<
-¢ information has not been provided to him by the * respondent on his RB {TSpeleations dated 15.06.2019, '
5. The res pendent § matted th: at vide their letter dated 12.07.2019; they have informed € spelen that the information sought is not maintainable in their office. Het further submitte 1 that no payment has been dishonored from the appellant's account, a categorical reply in this regard can be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
&. "The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and tat after peu sal of records, observ es that the appellant has sought information regarding "dishenes 6 amount from his account fas mentioned in RTI Application). That Wchougl" the information sought by the appellant is more in the nature of seeking clarifications based on records and not seeking any information which exists in material form. That queries related to clarifications are not maintainable under the RTI Act. it has been observed that the CPIO is nol supposed to create information; or to interpret information: or to furnish clarification to the appetiar ant under the ambit afthe RTL Act. As per Section 20) af the RTT Act, the reasons/opimions'advices can only be provided to the applicants if Wis ava ilable an record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information i the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO w only a commnicator of information based on the records held im the office and hence, ye Z WURECD Can fh QCCRSSes) OY a ER. auth OMeLy WIRICT any > other 'le aw ime beu eS ia force "Ourt decision i (8) SCC 497 (CBSE sand Anr. Vs. Aditva Bandopadhyay aad Ors), wherein it was held as s under:
in this. context af refer rence was made to the Hon"ble Supreme € Oe 33 "4 PabliccAuthority is also net required to furnish iaforsustion which sreguire drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. ff is alse net required to provide 'advice' ar 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required fo obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant.
dhe reference fo ore" or 'advice' in the definition of information' in section 269) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of tle publle att sthority, Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that iy purely voluntary and should net be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
3. Notw ithstandin ng above, since the appellant has contended that the payment of Rs. 631/- is dishonored from his account 3 times and the respondent has also agreed to provide a categorical reply to the appellant in this regard.
Therefore, the Commission deers if fit to direct the respondent to provide a revised reply to the appellant vide which if the payment has been dishonored from his account, the relevant information i in this: regard should be provided and if nat dishonored, a categorical eye " this regard should be provided to the a appellant within days from the date receipt o of this order ® With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of \ Yds gens. hp Gene 4 co pos phe 5 4 ra.
z f ede a7 ge "4 bee Bee 4 e Sonne es nie a on, oe be Gg A ire bor + tary were 4 LTE bene H £95 beer GF 4 9 Geeky % be w7 ot7 Ge eres OR"
%, fee hig iy ns YR hip Jenn o & nee, we fhe ome a teed, GS yarn, "a my ery @ Py, oS we ragan 4 TE?
a oy HA 4 P an, 3 no of Rea rr pe e rs ph eotinal os ERA we ; par) £0 ered a 2 vee oo mm OA ot Laced og ms oon 4 ot eB 4 dd RBO-
Sril ric PEO C "rent . ' 'cone oni ri