Central Information Commission
Smt. Sangya Pandey vs Bank Of Baroda on 25 October, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/VIJBK/A/2021/121521/BKOBD
Mrs. Sangya Pandey ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ...!ितवादी/Respondent
Vijaya Bank
C/o. Bank of Baroda
Muda Branch, JLB Road
Mysore, Karnataka-570005
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 19-03-2020 FA : 05-05-2021 SA : 05-04-2021
CPIO : Not on Record FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 17-10-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
2. No reply of CPIO is placed on record. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 05-05-2021 and requested that the Page 1 of 6 information should be provided to her. No reply of FAO is placed on record. SHe has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to himand requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent, Shri Anurag Tiwari, Law Officer attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The written submissions of the respondent are taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that till date no information has been provided to her by the respondent on her RTI application dated 19.03.2020.
6. The respondent, during the hearing, submitted that they have not received the original RTI application dated 19.03.2020 of the appellant in their office. They only came to know about the present RTI application when they have received the hearing notice from this Commission.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the respondent has not received the original RTI application of the appellant in their office. The Commission is of the view that now the respondent has received the RTI application of the appellant along with the hearing notice then the broad outcome of the application/or status of the complaint/letter should be informed to her under the RTI Act (as sought in the RTI application).
8. The Commission observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Page 2 of 6 this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest.
11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
Page 3 of 6The Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 wherein information on 03 points was sought regarding (i) Fate of Petitioner's complaint (tax evasion petition) dated 24.09.2003 (ii) What is the other source of income of petitioner's wife Smt. Saroj Nimal than from teaching as a primary teacher in a private school ' iii)What action the Department had taken against Smt. Saroj Nimal after issuing a notice u/s 131 of the Income 'tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the said Tax Evasion Petition. The Hon'ble High Court after careful examination of the matter had held as under:
"14. In the present case, the orders of the three respondents do not reflect any reasons, why the investigation process would be hampered. The direction of the CIC shows is that the information needs to be released only after the investigation and recovery in complete. Facially, the order supports the petitioner's contention that the claim for exemption made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are untenable. Section 8(1)(j) relates only to investigation and prosecution and not to recovery. Recovery in tax matters, in the usual circumstances is a time consuming affair, and to withhold information till that eventuality, after the entire proceedings, despite the ruling that investigations are not hampered by information disclosure, is illogical. The petitioner's grouse against the condition imposed by the CIC is all the more valid since he claims it to be of immense relevance, to defend himself in criminal proceedings. The second and third respondents have not purported to be aggrieved by the order of CIC as far as it directs disclosure of materials; nor have they sought for its review on the ground that the CIC was misled and its reasoning flawed. Therefore, it is too late for them to contend that the impugned order contains an erroneous appreciation of facts. The materials available with them and forming the basis of notice under the Income Tax act is what has to be disclosed to the petitioner, i.e the information seeker.
15. As to the issue of whether the investigation has been complete or not, I think that the authorities have not applied their mind about the nature of information sought. As is submitted by the Petitioner, he merely seeks access to the preliminary reports investigation pursuant to which notices under Sections 131, 143(2), 148 of the Income Tax have been issued and not as to the outcome of the investigation and reassessment carried on by the Assessing Officer. As held in the preceding part of the judgment, without a disclosure as to how the investigation process would be hampered by sharing the materials collected till the notices were issued to the assesse, the respondents could not have rejected the request for granting information.Page 4 of 6
The CIC, even after overruling the objection, should not have imposed the condition that information could be disclosed only after recovery was made.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion the order of the CIC dated 8th May 2006 in so far as it withholds information until tax recovery orders are made, is set aside. The second and third respondents are directed to release the information sought, on the basis of the materials available and collected with them, within two weeks."
9. In view of the above ratios, the Commission directs the respondent to inform to the appellant the status of her application (as mentioned in the RTI application) as on date of RTI application and present status and if the said application has already been disposed of, then the broad outcome as per her RTI application (without divulging the details of the investigation/inquiry) should be provided to the appellant, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
Information Commissioner (सू
सूचनाआयु )
दनांक / Date : 21-10-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Vijaya Bank
C/o. Bank of Baroda
Muda Branch, JLB Road
Mysore, Karnataka-570005
2. Mrs. Sangya Pandey
Page 6 of 6