Central Information Commission
Shiv Kumar Kanoi vs Central Bank on 21 December, 2023
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 Nos. (As per Annexure)
Shiv Kumar Kanoi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. Central Bank of India,
Kolkata
2. Central Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Sl Second Date of Date of Date of FA Date of Date of SA
No. Appeal RTI CPIO's Reply FAO
No. Application
1. 651583 15.07.2021 Not on record 02.09.2021 01.10.2021 29.10.2021
2. 651581 12.08.2021 Not on record 16.09.2021 08.10.2021 30.10.2021
3. 135709 22.04.2021 25.05.2021 17.06.2021 19.06.2021 03.09.2021
4. 135711 06.04.2021 05.05.2021 20.06.2021 01.07.2021 03.09.2021
5. 124302 13.01.2021 12.02.2021 17.02.2021 01.03.2021 25.06.2021
(copy not on
record)
6. 111747 12.10.2020 11.01.2021 14.11.2020 15.01.2021 17.03.2021
7. 111361 10.10.2020 11.01.2021 19.11.2020 15.01.2021 15.03.2021
8. 138357 25.02.2021 19.03.2021 06.04.2021 03.06.2021 15.09.2021
9. 138287 27.02.2021 19.03.2021 29.04.2021 03.06.2021 15.09.2021
10. 122184 17.12.2020 28.01.2021 02.02.2021 12.03.2021 11.06.2021
11. 111708 14.09.2020 26.10.2020 01.12.2020 31.12.2020 17.03.2021
12. 138285 18.02.2021 19.03.2021 09.04.2021 03.06.2021 15.09.2021
13. 138284 16.02.2021 19.03.2021 15.04.2021 03.06.2021 15.09.2021
Page 1 of 30
Note: The instant set of appeals of the Appellant have been clubbed for decision as these
relate to the same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 18.12.2023
Date of Decision: 20.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SMT. ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2021/651583/CBIND
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2021 seeking information through 11 points as under:
• Information's required that whether the above attached copies issued by bank even lying with bank records. Provide information as per records of bank.
• Whether these copies of replies duly required by me through my previous RTI applications & bank has failed to provide the same. Seeking above information's as per available records of bank.
• Seeking information's that whether previous CPIO has tried to suppress the above copies & failed to provide through my RTI applications. Seeking above information's as per available records of bank.
• Whether the contents of above replies are correct even as per records of bank.
Seeking information as per available records of bank.
• Whether bank has not suppressed the actual facts lying with bank records & issued above replies to suppress the facts of matter. Seeking information's as per available records of bank.
• Whether bank is holding my repeated complaints with information's & complaints that bank highest authorities are continuously misleading the highest authorities of our nation by issuing false fabricated replies one after Page 2 of 30 another even misleading including trying or suppressed available facts of matter lying with bank records. Provide the copies with an information's towards replies given by bank. Provide the copies of replies issued by bank.
• Information seeking towards issue a consent letter that the contents of replies are true even not been suppressed from the available facts lying with bank records even replies given to portal of Honorable Prime Minister "Intract with PM" from 2014 till date are correct or not given to mislead to PMO." etc. 1.1 Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2021. The FAA vide order dated 01.10.2021 directed the CPIO to respond to the RTI Application, as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
1.2 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 29.10.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2021/651581/CBIND
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.08.2021 seeking information through 17 points as under:
• Seeking information that the above letter lying with the bank record from 14.01.2019.
• Seeking information that the contents of the above letter duly prepared by the bank after several meeting held with me. Provide the details of meetings even the copies of letter duly submitted by me during the meetings. Provide the information as per available records of the bank.
• Seeking information that bank has failed to provide the above copy through my repeated reminder. Provide the information as per the available in the bank.
• Seeking information that the above copy was not provided by the bank through my RTI application & appeals. Provide the facts as per available in the bank Page 3 of 30 records even the copies of my reminders lying with the bank records towards my request to provide the above copy.
• Seeking the information that the above copy has been suppressed by the bank even failed to provide me in spite of repeated reminders even through RTI application & appeals. Provide the available facts of the matter as per records of the bank.
• Seeking information that the CPIO as failed to provide the above required copies through my RTI application in spite of the same is lying with the bank records.
• Seeking information that the Appellate Authority has failed to passed an order to provide the above required copies through my RTI application in spite of the same is lying with the bank records.
• Seeking information that the above mentioned copy duly provided by the Mumbai office after an order passed by the Honorable CIC, New Delhi during the final hearing.
• Seeking information that in spite of order passed by the Honorable CIC, New Delhi bank has provided partial incomplete information & failed to provide complete set-in spite of repeated reminders & complaints. Please provide the entire set of above letter with annexure as per lying in the bank records." etc. 2.1. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.09.2021. The FAA vide order dated 08.10.2021 directed the CPIO to respond to the RTI Application, as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
2.2. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.10.2021.
Page 4 of 30Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/135709
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.04.2021 seeking information through 17 points as under:
• Provide me information that the above OTS letter issued under your signature or not.
• Provide information that you have received the reply of above issued OTS letter under your signature. Provide the copies of the same.
• Provide the name & designation of signed authorities duly signed the above OTS letters.
• Provide information that you made a reply of the same. Provide the copy of replies.
• Provide information that whether you have received any reminders for provides your replies.
• Provide the copies of replies given by you.
• Provide information as per available records of, bank that whether your office
previously issued any above-mentioned OTS letters in my favor under your signature or from branch of Belighata. Please provide entire details of date of issue even copies of the same.
• Provide information that bank has received any replies towards the previous OTS letters issued by bank' provide information the date of received the reply as per available records of bank even supply the copies.
• Provide information that bank has given replies of received letters towards replies of banks letters of OTS issued by bank. Please give the information along with copies of replies.
• Provide information that bank has received any emails, reminders letters towards replies of bank in the matter of above mentioned OTS letters issued by Page 5 of 30 bank or your office. Provide the copies of replies issued by your office even bank. k) provide information that bank even you as a CPIO received any RTI application in the matter of above-mentioned OTS letters issued by bank even your office under your signature. Provide the information along with copy of your reply given as per records of bank even your office." etc. 3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.05.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this connection we have to inform you that you had asked the same information through numerous RTI applications, which had been replied by the Bank."
3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.06.2021. The FAA vide order dated 19.06.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.09.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/135711
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.04.2021 seeking information through 13 points as under:
• "Attaching a copy of a statement duly prepared, signed & approved by bank authorities including SRM, North & FGM, Kolkata Zonal Office. Provide me an information that the above statement prepared by your office or not even lying in the bank records or not.
• Provide me information and detail of the concern officers of your office, who made the above statement. Provide me the name & designation of the persons who signed lying in above statement.Page 6 of 30
• Provide me an information towards your awareness of preparation of above mentioned statements highlights outstanding dues of KMC taxes for the period of 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2018 please inform me your observation in the above matter.
• Provide me an information that bank has made the above payment of dues towards KMC taxes. Provide me the details of payment of above mentioned taxes of KMC towards part of bank obligation as per terms of lease deed.
• Provide me an information that your office has received any email, reminders even RTI applications in the matter of above agreed dues of bank obligation towards KMC tax as per terms of lease deed. Provide the entire information towards received my reminders." etc. 4.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.05.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this connection we have to inform you that you had asked the same information through numerous RTI applications, which had been replied by the Bank."
4.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2021. The FAA vide order dated 01.07.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.09.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/124302
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.01.2021 seeking information on more than 20 points as under:
• "Seeking the confirmation of attached copy of my email dated 02.01.2021 with reminder given dated 10.01.2021. Provide the reason of remaining silent & not Page 7 of 30 replying. Whether your silence over the reply given by you to PMO/MOF/RBI is a further confirmation of my repeated objections that the you bank authorities are continuously misleading these highest authorities of our nation by giving false fabricated information's by suppressed the available facts lying in the bank records. Please confirm & provide an immediate reply within 3 days.
• Attaching herewith a copy of your reply given to PMO/Ministry of finance/DFS towards my complaints. Seeking confirmation that your above reply is correct even given as per contents of my complaint. Please confirm.
• Provide the reason of providing even misleading all the above mentioned highest authorities of our nation by giving false fabricated information's or replies one after another from 2014 duly proved even evidences are submitted lying with bank records. Failed to replies reminders even RTI applications & appeals towards my series of objection emails & letters towards above most unfair attitudes of bank higher authorities, please confirm.
• Seeking your confirmation towards contents of your replies by making allegations on me with your words that "Sri Shiv Kumar Kanoi is a habitual complainant who has filed hundreds of baseless complaint against the bank before various Authorities such as RBI, CIC and Government Authorities" etc. 5.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.02.2021 which is not on record of the Commission.
5.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2021. The FAA vide order dated 01.03.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.06.2021.Page 8 of 30
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/111747
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.10.2020 seeking information through 15 points as under:
• "Provide me a confirmation that the above 2 letters issued under your signature in the matter of dues payment of last 35 years. Please confirm.
• Provide me the confirmation about your awareness even as per records of your office in the matter of final settlement made by your office even a signature on consent letter dated 14.01.2019 taken with a confirmation that all 3 loan accounts were duly adjusted by bank from arrears of dues. Seeking a brief comments towards above matter as per records of your office and provides the copy of consent letter duly received by DRM of your office personally acknowledged by him. Please confirm.
• Provide me confirmations that any final draft copy duly prepared by your office dated 29.02.2019 after received the signed copy of consent letter dated 14.01.2019 of landlord with acceptances of bank decision towards adjustment of all 3 loan accounts. Please confirm and provide the copy of the same.
• Provide me a confirmation that your office prepared a final draft copy of adjustment of all 3 loan accounts and after duly approved by them SRM, north, the same was sent to office, please confirm as per available records of your office.
• Provide me a confirmation that your office made any calculation sheeted towards adjustment of all 3 loan accounts from arrears of dues. Please confirm & provide the copies of the same, • Provide me a confirmation that your office prepared a statement of outstanding dues towards KMC dues from 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2018. Please confirm and provide the copy as per records of your office." etc. Page 9 of 30 6.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.01.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The application is rejected on the following ground:
In the RTI Application, you have asked for confirmation of your letters and various facts as mentioned in your RTI Application. Confirmation does not fall under the definition of information under Section 2(f) in RTI Act."
6.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2020. The FAA vide order dated 15.01.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.03.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/111361
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2020 seeking information on the following points:
A. "Provide me the information towards above mentioned matter, copies of emails & letters received from me in the above-mentioned matter duly lying with records of your office. Provide me the copies of the same. B. Provide the details of emails received from / SO (BOIII), DFS /MOS/ RBI from 01.01.2018 till date along with copies of replies given by authorized Officer, Kolkata.
C. Provide me the confirmation of received the information's towards reply of 13/2 notice even information of full & final settlement made by bank. Please confirm and provide the copies of the same."
7.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.01.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 10 of 301. "The information asked in point no. A and B of your RTI Application is commercial confidential of the bank and does not come under the definition of information under Section 2(f) in RTI Act.
2. The information asked in point no. C of your RTI Application, you have asked for confirmation of various acts and deed. Confirmation does not fall under the definition of information under Section 2(f) in RTI Act."
7.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2020. The FAA vide order dated 15.01.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
7.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.03.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/138357
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.02.2021 seeking information on the following points:
• "Provide me the information towards required information as per bank records even your awareness towards above mentioned attached details.
• Seeking the confirmation that you have replied all these attached copies.
• Provide the copies of your replies even investigation reports towards my repeated email, reminder lying with your office records without suppressing the facts.
• Provide the copies of replies given to CVC/PMO/MOF/DFS/CPGRAM/CVO/RBI 7 other concerned authorities towards the matter of my complaints even instructions issued by them even as per records of your office. Provide the copies."
8.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-Page 11 of 30
"Para a to d: Information sought is not specific, therefore can't be replied.
Para e: Information sought is not specific, therefore can't be replied. Information sought with regard to providing the confirmation doesn't come under the definition of "Information" under RTI Act."
8.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.04.2021. The FAA vide order dated 03.06.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
8.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.09.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/138287
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.02.2021 seeking information on 14 points as under:
• "Muncipal & Commercial Tax (part of bank obligation as per terms of Lease Deed).
1) Provide me a confirmation that there is any agreed terms duly signed even mentioned in the lease deed that landlord will pay the above part of bank obligation by invest their own fund. Please provide the copy of said agreed terms.
2) Please provide the details of payment made by bank towards their part of obligation for above mentioned taxes for the period of 01.01.1984 to 31.12.1998/ 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2007/ 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2018 & from 01.01.2019 till date. Please provide entire details even calculation sheets of payment.
• Service & GST Taxes as per terms of Lease Deed.Page 12 of 30
3) Please provide me the details of payment of Service Tax part of bank obligation as per the terms of lease deed from 01.02.2008 to 31.12.2018 & from 01.01.2019 till date.
4) Please provide me the details of payment of GST Tax part of bank obligation as per the terms of lease deed from 01.03.2008 to 31.12.2028 & from 01.01.2019 till date." etc. 9.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. "Information sought with regard to providing the confirmation doesn't come under the definition of "Information" under the RTI Act. ii. Mr. Kanoi failed to establish that he has paid Municipal rates and taxes as well commercial surcharge to be reimbursed by the bank. iii. No service tax paid by the bank.
iv. GST on rent paid to Mr. Kanoi was payment were regularly made in government account....".
9.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2021. The FAA vide order dated 03.06.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
9.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.09.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/122184
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2020 seeking information on the following points:
• "Provide me a confirmation that above mentioned letter along with attachment duly received by MD, CEO, Central Office, Mumbai or not. Provide a confirmation.Page 13 of 30
• Provide me a confirmation that MD, CEO, Central Office, Mumbai duly replied the above letter as per mentioned in my above letter for a suitable reply within 7 days towards attached copies. Please confirm and provide the copy of reply given by FGM. If not replied provide the reason for the same.
• Provide me a confirmation that after expiry of lease deed on 31.12.2018 even present occupation on our premises is legal or valid even forceful, illegal occupation as a trespasser. Please confirm.
• Provide me a confirmation that bank has paid any amount towards new agreed rent/GST & KMC taxes (liable for interest and penalties imposed by these departments) from the date of illegal occupation from 01.01.2019 provide the details.
• Provide a confirmation that bank has obtained any of our consent for further occupation after expiry of lease deed on 31.12.2018. Provide the copy of said confirmation.
• Provide me a confirmation that bank is liable for damages and competition for forceful, illegal occupation as a trespasser after expiry off lease deed. Please confirm.
• Provide me a confirmation or reason of not replied my above letter even copies of attachment within 7 days as per request made duly mentioned in my above letter dated 01.12.2020. Provide the reason."
10.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.01.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Para a to g: Information sought with regard to providing confirmation doesn't come under the definition of "Information" under RTI Act."Page 14 of 30
10.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2021. The FAA vide order dated 12.03.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
10.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.06.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/111708
11. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2020 seeking information on the following points:
• "Provide me a confirmation of not replying my series of reminders lying pending before you in spite of reminders given to you.
• Attaching a copy of minutes dated 14.02.2020 duly prepared in my absence by Mumbai office as per instruction of higher authorities after a lapse of about 2 months of meeting held on 14.02.2020 with respected CMD Sri Pallav Mahapatraji by mentioned back date without any of my consent and content are false fabricated never been discussed and accepted by me duly proved.
• Attaching a copy of approval letter dated 04.06.2020 duly received by branch manager Beliaghata branch, Kolkata towards information of approval made by central office, Mumbai as per their own suitability without having any of my consent even awareness of contents of approval duly replied by me on 06.06.2020. Copy of said reply also forwarded to respected CMD/ED/CVO/Law, GM & attended concerned authorities of bank. Failed to reply even RTI application.
• Attaching the copies dated 29.06.2020 & 30.06.2020 issued under signature of Regional manager, North, Kolkata, Sri Sundeep Kar towards information of approval made by central office, Mumbai as per their own suitability without having any of my consent even awareness of contents of approval duly objected Page 15 of 30 by me through letter dated 06.06.2020 & reminders and same is Wing with CMD/ED/CVO/GM. Legal & other concerned officers. Further information given to me duly mentioned in above letters of credit some amount in our closed saving accounts without obtaining any of my prior consent even permissions by violating the norms & guideline of RBI & CVC. I made my further submitted through objection letter with reply towards above illegal activities done by these officers of bank. About 5 months has been passed of above, failed reply reminders even RTI applications." etc. 11.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.10.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-
a. "Information sought with regard to providing the confirmation doesn't come under the definition of "Information" under RTI Act. b. Information sought is not clear, therefore, can't be replied. c. Information sought is not clear, therefore, can't be replied. d. Letter is issued on the basis of mutually agreement terms of meeting dated 14.02.2020...."
11.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.12.2020. The FAA vide order dated 31.12.2020 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
11.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.03.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/138285
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.02.2021 seeking information through 21 points as under:
• Copies of the statements duly prepared by bank with an acceptance of KMC dues of Rs 9599736.00 laces for the period from 01.1.1998 to 31.12.2018 once again Page 16 of 30 attached. Further liabilities increased due to non execution of written commitment already been informed Seeking your awareness of above statement made by your office with your kind intervention.
• Attaching a copy of statement made by bank even duly signed and approved by bank authorities with a remark of OUTGO OF BANK ON SETTMENT OF ISSUES OF LANDLORD OF BELIAGHATA PREMIESES UP TO 31.12.2018 15 Bs.20949058. Seeking a confirmation of validity of above statement duly signed and approved by bank authorities.(SEEKING THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF ABOVE STATEMENT DULY ISSUED BY BANK UNDER THEIR SIGNATURE) • Attaching herewith a copy of letter dated 18.09.2020 issued by bank under instruction of central office. Provide me a confirmation the legal validity of above letter on 22.10.2020.
• Attaching a signed copy of statement of adjustment of CENT RENTAL LOAN duly adjusted by bank as on 31.12.2012 (SEEKING THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF ABOVE STATEMENT DULY PREPARED SIGNED & APPROVED BY BANK AUTHORTIES & PUT THEIR SIGNATURES) e) Attaching a signed copy of statement of adjustment of CENT TRADE LOAN OF BANSAL & COMPANY duly adjusted by bank as on 25.03.2016. (SEEKING THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF ABOVE STATEMENT DULY PREPARED, SIGNED & APPROVED BY BANK AUTHORTIES & PUT THEIR SIGNATURES).." etc. 12.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Information sought is not specific and clear as replies of RTI received earlier were replied and provided to Mr. Kanoi."
12.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.04.2021. The FAA vide order dated 03.06.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 17 of 3012.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.09.2021.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/138284
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.02.2021 seeking information on the following points:
• "Please provide me the entire copies of letters, emails received by above mentioned authorities addressed to Mumbai office in above matter of my grievances from 2014 without suppressed the available facts in records of bank.
• Please provide me the copies of replies given to all these above mentioned authorities towards their emails & letters received by above mentioned offices.
• Please provide entire details of replies given by above mentioned authorities or received by their office from 2014.
• Please provide the entire details including the correspondences exchanged with above mentioned authorities towards my complaints from 2014.
• Please provide all documents/instructions/notices/correspondences with regard to, or on basis of which all replies made to CPGRAM in last 7 years.
• Please provide the copy of filings/correspondences/letters/instructions issued after signing the said replies or letters, for communication and information to appropriate authorities, about the signing of letter and implementation thereof."
13.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Para I to VI: Information sought is not specific, therefore can't be replied."Page 18 of 30
13.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2021. The FAA vide order dated 03.06.2021 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
13.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.09.2021.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
14. The Appellant was present through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Anupam Bandhopadhyay, Central Bank, Mumbai alongwith Naveen Sharma, Central Bank, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference.
15. The Commission, at the outset observed that the instant matter was being heard as a bunch matter of 13 cases filed by the Appellant against the same Respondent on similar or identical subject matter. It was also observed that these matters were previously listed for hearing on two occasions but were not taken up for technical reasons, however, the Respondent(s) had already placed on record their written submissions in pursuance of the earlier hearing notices(s) vide their letter(s) dated 14.02.2023 and 18.02.2023. Upon perusing these submissions, it was observed that the Appellant appears to be pursuing a grievance through a multitude of RTI Application and Appeal(s) filed over the years. It was also remarked that the archives of the Commission indicate around 97 decisions issued in the matters filed by the Appellant against the same Bank since the year 2017. In this backdrop, the Appellant was asked to tender specific submissions but in a composite manner for the matters being heard today.
16. The Appellant submitted vaguely that he fails to understand how the FAA, Kolkata adjudicated on his First Appeal and RTI Application filed with Central Bank HO, Mumbai. Further, he stated that the CPIOs do not provide any reply to the RTI Applications, rather quote reference of some earlier replies but do not provide copy of such earlier reply to conceal the actual information and augment their wrongdoings. Furthermore, he alleged that in an earlier matter before the Commission, the Respondent had submitted that they did not receive the RTI Application but upon issuance of show-
Page 19 of 30cause notice, their stance was altered which proves their malafide intent. At this point, the Commission advised the Appellant to restrict his arguments, if any, to the facts of the instant set of cases. However, no further substantial argument was forthcoming.
17. The Respondent(s) submitted in unison that the Commission has appropriately considered their stand through the arguments tendered in their respective written submissions and they do not have anything further to add in the matter. For the sake of clarity, the written submissions of the Respondent(s) are reproduced hereunder:
Submissions of the CPIO, Central Bank, Mumbai:
"1. It is admitted that Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi have visited our Mumbai office on 14.06.2022 as per order dated 07.06.2022 of Hon'ble CIC in the following second appeal No.CIC/CBIND/A/2020/111535, CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112065, and CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112064 & CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112063 (Shiv Kumar Kanoi v. CPIO: Central Bank of India Nariman Point, Mumbai).
2. On 14.06.2022 during the inspection of documents Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi have received copy of the documents and all the proceeding is minutised on 14.06.2022 in the presence Mr. Shiv Kumar Kanoi.
3. Further he had asked for some more documents. Accordingly, we have supplied the documents vide our letter dated 19.07.2022.
4. Mr. Kanoi have also inspected the files at Kolkata office. This is clear from the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Commission in Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2020/101437 (Shiv Kumar Kanoi vs. CPIO Central Bank of India, Kolkata). In that matter one of the issues raised by him was related to inspection. The Hon'ble Commission, vide its order dated 25.05.2022 has observed as under:
'The applicant admitted that he had inspected the relevant record three times. The appellant during the course of hearing submitted that complete record were not offered for inspection however, he failed to specify the documents/files which were Page 20 of 30 not offered for inspection. Perusal of records further reveals that the applicant had grievance with regard to settlement of his loan which may be raised before an appropriate forum. In view of the above and the inspection having being given to the appellant, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.'
5. Mr. Kanoi have also filed the non-compliance complaint dated 02.07.2022 in Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2020/111535, CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112065, CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112064 & CIC/CBIND/A/2020/112063 (Shiv Kumar Kanoi vs. CPIO Central Bank of India, Kolkata). In that matter also issue raised by Appellant related to inspection. Hon'ble Commission, vide its order dated 14.11.2022 has observed as under:
'Since the appellant expressed dissatisfaction, the Commission ordered the CPIOs to allow inspection of the records. However, it is seen that the appellant in case of inspection at Kolkata, instead of inspecting records as per orders of the Commission, made it conditional and adopted a different path. He did not deny inspection of records at Mumbai,but made some allegations. The Commission already recorded that point-wise reply had been provided by the Respondents. As to the non-compliance of orders of the Commission to allow inspection of records, the Commission observes that the appellant chose not to inspect the records at Central Bank India, Kolkata and inspected the records at Mumbai. Since he chose not to inspect the records, his complaint alleging non-compliance on the part of respondent is misplaced. Under the circumstances, there is no non- compliance on the part of the CPIOs and there is no merit in the complaint of the appellant. Hence the complaint of non-compliance of appellant is rejected and case is closed.'
6. The appellant is raising the issues again and again multiple times instead of raising the issues in appropriate forum. Sir. in this connection I humbly refer to the decision of the Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi in matter of Naresh Sharma Vs Tata Institute of Page 21 of 30 Fundamental Research in Decision No. CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/11007, 142877. 129484,139840.140503,144699,CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/102629.CIC/TIOFR/C/2019/147408 ,CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/109136.CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/13732 (Decided on 29.01.2021) wherein observation of the Hon'ble CIC is as under:
'That the commission notes that the information as per available record is provided by the CPIO against an RTI application, hence no further intervention of the commission is warranted in the matter. The instant matter is a glaring example of misuse of RTI mechanism where it is evident that a never ending process of seeking information is resorted to by the information seeker by manufacturing a series of queries based on the response provided by the CPIO. With the above observation, the present Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.' xxx"
The CPIO, Central Bank, Kolkata submitted on the same lines as the CPIO, Central Bank, Mumbai, with the following additions:
"6. It is pertinent to mention that Mr. Shiv Kanoi has availed financial assistances from bank which has become NPA due to non-payment of loan amount by Mr. Shiv Kanoi. For recovery of Loan amount Bank has initiated legal action in DRT and also under SARFAESI act and Mr. Shiv kanoi has also made objection/filed counter claim in SARFAESI Matter. Case is still pending for adjudication.
7. It is also pertinent to mention that he has been publishing fake and fabricated news in media so Bank has filed a defamation case No. 201/2021 against him in Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta which is pending. He is filing numerous similar RTI applications to different offices of the Bank and also sending number of mails to the said offices of Bank as well as authorities of Government of India on daily basis only to harass the Bank and pressurize the Bank Official to not pursue legal action initiated against him.Page 22 of 30
8. It is also submitted that he has filed more than 100 RTI applications on same ground. In all the RTI applications he has been demanding the same set of information and documents which either have already been provided to him or are already in his possession.
9. It is also submitted that he has filed 25 new RTI applications in between 1 to 15 February 2023. In all the RTI applications he has been demanding the same set of information and documents which either have already been provided to him or are already in his possession.
10. The appellant/ complainant has been using the numerous RTI Applications for his self-interest and none of his numerous applications involves any public interest.
11. The repeated and frivolous RTI applications are being made by the frivolous RTI applications are being made by the appellant/ complainant to fulfil his personal vengeance against the bank.
12. Reply of the numerous RTI applications by the bank causes huge wastage of its manpower and resources and also put its officers to extreme harassment. Many of its officers are forced to devote their time and energy in replying to the frivolous applications, which ultimately affects the bank's productivity and efficiency in its core activity."
18. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that concededly, the Appellant is relentlessly filing RTI Applications and Appeals on the same subject matter of his grievance about loan repayment; lease deed etc. for over 5 years now. A bare perusal of the contents of the RTI Applications under reference in indicative of the fact that access to information is not the concern of the Appellant as none of his RTI Applications seek information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and yet most of these Applications fail to even adhere to the word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. The Appellant is asking the CPIO to confirm and deny statements; verify records; create records, all of which Page 23 of 30 appears to be aimed at mortifying the CPIOs under the garb of exercising his right to information. It is a matter of record as brought out in the written submissions of the Respondent(s) that on two occasions, the Commission has previously held that the Appellant has been facilitated enough with available records and opportunities of inspection, yet he has remained unsatisfied. Even during the course of the hearing in the instant set of matters, the Appellant was unable to specify any "record" or "information", rather he was expressing his angst against the Respondent office in a rhetoric manner by quoting past conduct of the Bank vis-à-vis his RTI Applications.
19. Adverting to the foregoing observations, the Appellant is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has 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 the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of 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 Page 24 of 30 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 authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.'
20. Similarly, 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 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:
Page 25 of 30"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) 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.Page 26 of 30
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)
21. The findings of the Commission in the instant set of matter largely point towards a misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the Appellant over so many years. Here, the Appellant's attention is again invited towards certain precedents set by the superior Courts recognizing the misuse of the RTI Act:
In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' Page 27 of 30 In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.'
22. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission does not find it expedient to adjudge the merits of the action/inaction of the Respondent(s) with respect to the RTI Applications & First Appeal(s) under reference.
23. The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere inter play of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission. He is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter.
Page 28 of 3023. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म)
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 20.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala (सुमन बाला)
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514 (०११-२६१८०५१८)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Central Bank of India,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Kolkata (North) Regional Office,
Central Bank Building, 4th Floor,
33, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, W.B.-700001
2. The CPIO
Central Bank of India,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
12th Floor, Central Office, Chander Mukhi,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021
3. Shiv Kumar Kanoi
Page 29 of 30
Annexure of Second Appeal Nos.
1. CIC/RUGBK/A/2021/651583/CBIND
2. CIC/RUGBK/A/2021/651581/CBIND
3. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/135709
4. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/135711
5. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/124302
6. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/111747
7. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/111361
8. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/138357
9. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/138287
10. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/122184
11. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/111708
12. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/138285
13. CIC/CBIND/A/2021/138284
Page 30 of 30