Central Information Commission
Sanjeev Mehndiratta vs State Bank Of India on 10 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/645870
Sanjeev Mehndiratta ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
State Bank of India, RTI Cell,
3, Ground Floor, Nariman Point,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/08/2023
Date of Decision : 09/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 25/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 23/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 25/05/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Copy of circular, office memo, policy, Riles and regulations and any type of instructions or guidelines, issued by the bank containing steps to be taken 1 to trace the important documents which are reported to be lost/misplaced/non traceable from the custody of the bank/bank officials.
2. Copy of standard operating procedure to be followed by bank to fix accountability in case of important documents found to be lost/ misplaced/non-traceable from the custody of the bank officials despite reportedly best efforts made to trace the lost/misplaced/ non-traceable documents."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.03.2022 stating as under:
"Information sought is not specific and is in nature o seeking queries or interpretation of information, generic in nature which is outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 25.05.2022, concurs with the reply of the CPIO hence upheld. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shivendra Kumar, DGM & CPIO along with Anita Vishnu, Chief Manager (Law) present through video-conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply reiterating the contents of his written submission filed prior to hearing, wherein he inter alia ,stating as under -
• "Firstly, that the information as sought by the Applicant/ Appellant is related to the framework as formulated by the Respondent Public Authority for tracing important documents that are reported to be lost, misplaced or are not traceable.
• Secondly, that the information as sought by the Applicant/ Appellant was deliberately declined on vague grounds.
• Thirdly, it shall very much be pertinent to point out that the Respondent Public Authority is a Statutory Body, which is not only bound by the 2 provisions of Public Records Act, 1993 but also bound by the provisions of The Banking Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules, 1985. Further, the Respondent Public Authority is a Fortune 500 Company and India's largest Public Sector Bank having a specific Record Retention Policy in place and thus, procedure for tracing important documents that are reported to be lost, misplaced or which are reported to be not traceable should also have been formulated. Taking into consideration that there are numerous stakeholders, record of which the Respondent Public Authority maintains, having a dedicated framework for tracing records and/ or documents has to be in place.
• Fourthly, formulation of such framework is also required for the purpose of initiation of action against the Record Officer (in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Public Records Act, 1993) where it is found that the Record Officer had failed to discharge his duties.
• Lastly, that while the Respondent Public Authority has not specifically denied the existence of such framework, had there been no such framework in place the information sought would have outrightly been denied. Thus, it is prima-facie evident that an attempt is being made by the erring CPIO to protect the misdeeds of his fellow colleagues & other officials of the Respondent Public Authority...."
In response to Appellant's contention, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 04.08.2023 relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
"...a. The CPIO responded to the appellant well within time. All the points of Code of Ethics of SBI mentioned by the appellant in the ground for second appeal, form part of the order of FAA dated 25.05.2022. FAA in his decision has mentioned about code of Bank's Commitment to customers, the same is uploaded at www.bcsbi.com , which reads as follows:
"ln the event of our losing the securities documents/ title deeds you have provided to us when you availed a loan, we will compensate you for the /loss. We will issue a certificate indicating the securities/ documents / title deeds lost and extend all assistance to you for obtaining duplicate documents, etc at our cost".3
b. The FAA in its order had also referred to the circular on compensation policy regarding compensation payable to the customers by Bank in case of lost documents that are in the form of security aka security documents.
"The Bank would pay the compensation for delay in return of securities/ documents/title deeds of the mortgaged property beyond 15 days of repayment of all dues agreed to or contracted, subject to above conditions, @ Rs. 100/- per day (maximum Rs.5000/- to the borrower The Bank is very transparent in its public disclosure.
c. The concerned CPIO and DGM (RTl) has responded to all the queries raised by the appellant vide letter no RTI/001042 dated 25.03.2022 and the response of the CPIO was also upheld by First Appellate Authority & Chief General Manager (R&DB Operations) through order no 00812022 dated 25.05.2022.
d. We again submit that the information sought is not specific and general in nature. The appellant himself has mentioned that "Moreover, in my application I have not mentioned specifically about ross of the title deeds of mortgaged properties, secured documents", Hence, it could not be comprehended from the queries raised that the appellant had sought information about which specific documents."
Decision:
The Commission upon hearing the submissions of both the parties and by closely scrutinizing the records is in agreement with the response of the CPIO that the information as sought by the Appellant appears to be vague and indeterminate which does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Here, 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. In this regard, the attention is also 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 4 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.
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 5 information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply provided by the CPIO and as sequel to it further clarification tendered through FAA's order by inviting attention of the Appellant towards the specific hyperlink is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
However, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of charge with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पं जीयक
िदनां क /
6