Central Information Commission
Amit Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 12 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : As Per Annexure
Amit Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Regional Manager, State Bank of
India, RBO Bhagalpur (13737), RTI
Cell, 3rd Floor, Bhowesh Bhawan,
Khanjarpur, Bhagalpur - 812001, Bihar. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/06/2023
Date of Decision : 09/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
(Note: All the above mentioned appeals of the Appellant are clubbed together,
as the subject-matter is similar in nature)
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
File No. RTI CPIO replied FA filed on FAA order 2nd
application on Appeal/Complaint
filed on dated
600564 30.11.2021 04.12.2021 04.12.2021 03.01.2022 NIL
600567 15.11.2021 04.12.2021 04.12.2021 03.01.2022 NIL
601612 12.10.2021 25.10.2021 26.10.2021 23.11.2021 NIL
601616 18.10.2021 25.10.2021 26.10.2021 23.11.2021 NIL
601795 21.10.2021 25.10.2021 26.10.2021 23.11.2021 NIL
601807 28.09.2021 25.10.2021 26.10.2021 23.11.2021 NIL
602073 11.10.2021 25.10.2021 26.10.2021 23.11.2021 NIL
602897 15.11.2021 04.12.2021 04.12.2021 03.01.2022 NIL
603959 29.11.2021 04.12.2021 04.12.2021 03.01.2022 NIL
605869 01.12.2021 28.12.2021 28.12.2021 27.01.2022 NIL
605884 04.12.2021 28.12.2021 29.12.2021 27.01.2022 NIL
608425 18.12.2021 31.12.2021 01.01.2022 29.01.2022 NIL
608456 08.12.2021 31.12.2021 01.01.2022 01.02.2022 NIL
1
627336 19.02.2022 16.03.2022 29.03.2022 26.04.2022 NIL
641782 16.06.2022 23.06.2022 23.06.2022 14.07.2022 NIL
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/600564
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/600567
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI applications dated 31.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"Pls provide correct information against CVC/CVO complain .
Complain- What is my OTP number pertains to my Email updation dtd 30.11.2020 ? Why did SBI Branch Manager changed my Email id of my saving account on dtd 30.11.2020? I did not receive any OTP and even SMS also for my Email updation. and i have not requested Branch to change my Email id .
SBI Branch Manager blaming me that i have changed my Email id through Net banking on dtd 30.11.2020 ( Refer SBI Email dtd 12.05.2021 -attached ).
SBI EMAIL updation approved procedure (Attached) - OTP is compulsory for change Email id through Net banking from customer end.
SBI SMS Delivery report of 30.11.2020 is also enclosed. In this delivery report of SMS , there is only One OTP pertains to new Nominee Registration has been delivered to me.
Apart from Nominee Registration, there is 3 Alert message for profile section accesses received. This does not mean that I have changed my Email id 3 Times on dtd 30.11.2020 ?
From 2012-2021 (9 Yrs) - I have received 1000 times alert message for profile section accessed. It does not mean that i have changed my Email id 1000 times ?
Also Alert message for profile section accessed and OTP message both have different meaning and purpose. OTP message will come after profile section accessed Alert message .
If SBI will show me SMS or OTP pertains to my Email update, i will accept my negligence.2
Pls reply against CVC complain, which is pending since more than 6 months & 11 days."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 04.12.2021 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI application received by us on 30.11.2021 & 15.11.2021 we have to furnished that the information sought by you is hypothetical/grievances and does not falls under the purview of definition of information given under section 2(i) of RTI act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2021. FAA's order dated 03.01.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/600564 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.10.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Query no-1 - What is correct information for E-mail removal feature date from customer end in 2020?
a) As per reply DTD 15.06.2021 against RTI SBI PATNA is 20.12.2020 (Ref SBIPA/R/E/21/0089 ) .
B) As per reply DTD 15.06.2021 against RTI SBI PATNA is 20.12.2020 (Ref SBIPA/R/E/21/0317).
C) As per reply DTD 15.06.2021 against RTI SBI PATNA is 20.12.2020 (Ref SBIPA/R/E/21/0331).
D)As per reply DTD 21.06.2021 against RTI SBI AHEMDABAD is 24.12.2020 (Ref SBIAC/R/E/21/0220).
E) As per reply DTD 17.07.2021 against RTI SBI PATNA is 20.12.2020 (Ref SBIPA/R/E/21/00381).
F) As per reply from E-Gyanshala SBI is 20.12.2020 (Attached -SBI INB DEPATMENT MAIL).
G) As per reply DTD 05.08.2021 against RTI SBI CORPORATE is 24.12.2020 (Ref SBIND/R/T/21/01217).
H) Again Revise statement from RTI SBI Bhagalpur, As per reply DTD 16.09.2021 against RTI SBI Bhagalpur is 23.12.2020 (Ref SBIPA/R/E/21/00536). SO why wrong information is being passed to customer? How a customer can Trust on SBI RTI statement? So accordingly, i requested for supporting documents in this regard.
SO i will raise this complain in CIC (Second appeal) also .
3So contradictory statement from different RTI is 20.12.2020 or 23.12.2020 or 24.12.2020?
2) Query No- 2- Can a customer change their Own Email id through INB ON DTD 30.11.2020 ( 10 Months & 21 days before ) without OTP ? I have enclosed SMS log details of 30.11.2020 (Page-14 ) , in which there is no any OTP is delivered from SBI bank side on my Registered Email Number. Alert message for Profile section accessed on dtd 30.11.2020, i received 3 Times & 1 Time Nominee Registration OTP details received. Alert Message & OTP message both are different message and being used for different purpose. OTP message will come after Alert message profile section.
3 Times Alert message received on dtd 30.11.2020 , does not confirm that i have changed my Email id 3 Times .
SBI Email updation procedure (Refer Page -13) - It saya that changes to Email address can be self approved using OTP sent to your Registered Mobile Number. But i did not receive any OTP on dtd 30.11.2020 for my Email updation, which is quite clear from SMS DLR report of 30.11.202020.
If customer will change their Own Email id through INB, OTP must received on customer Registered Mobile Number . Show me OTP Number pertains to my Email updation dtd 30.11.2020.
From 2012 to 2021 (9 years), i have received Alert Message 1000 Times. That means i have changed my Email 1000 Times ?
Waiting for correct information. Otherwise i will raise complain in second appeal in CIC.
Changing of Email id of saving account without customer Knowledge, OTP & Consent is a crime /forgery/420/corruption/ cheating/Theft case."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.10.2021 stating as under:
"Email ID change/update feature is available in the Profile Section of User profile under My Profile tab. Profile password in addition to login ID and Password is required to access this section."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2021. FAA's order dated 03.01.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4CIC/SBIND/A/2022/600564 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.10.2021 seeking the following information:
"Query - Why SBI Bank changed my Email id on DTD 30.11.2020 (10 Months & 17 days before) without my consent & Knowledge?
Changes of Email of saving account without customer consent & Knowledge from SBI Bank at their end on dtd 30.11.2020 is a crime / Fraud / Cheating / 420 /Corruption case . Customer has not requested to Bank to change his Email id and Customer also not received any OTP from Bank side on my Registered Mobile Number for Email updation. After changing of Email id from Bank side, immediately on dtd 01.12.2020 (Time -00.00.00 AM to 04.40.00 AM), Total amount Rs 267170/- ( Multiple 60 Nos. Unauthorized Transaction ) took place in my account .
SBI Bank (Branch Manager) has given written statement that from my Net banking account my email id has been updated on 30.11.2020, This is a false statement given by Bank to hide their SBI IT problem /discrepancy , or some Employee of SBI is involved in corruption case related to my Fraud Transaction , or It may be Third party Breach case .
SBI Email updation approved procedure from Customer end through INB (Refer Page -1 attached) :- It says that changes to Email address can be self approved using OTP sent to your Registered Mobile Number. I did not received any OTP message from SBI Bank side to my registered mobile number on dtd 30.11.2020 pertains to my update Email id , then how SBI can blaim to me and reject my claim on account of customer Negligence.?
Same query 2 Times Cyber Police already asked from SBI Bank, but no proper reply.
a) Dtd 15.12.2020 through Notice to Branch Manager - How customer Email id changed after 28.11.2020 without OTP ? No proper reply .
b) Dtd 14.04.2021- Again one more notice to SBI Branch Manager & SBI Nodal officer . Customer can not change their Own Email id through INB , as Bank has 5 not given authorization to its customer to change his own Email id through INB. 4 Nos. different Internet banking customers Photo snap shot also shared as a proof with Bank by Cyber Police. But no proper reply from Bank side. Bank could easily tell to cyber police that this feature is removed from SBI bank side since 20.12.2020 or 24.12.2020?
Please note that on DTD 30.11.2020 to 01.12.2020 Following SMS delivered from Bank side on my Registered Mobile Number (Refer attached Page -2).
A) 3 Times Profile access Alert Message - what dost it mean? Whether I have changed my Email id 3 Times?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.10.2021 stating as under:
"Email ID change/update feature is available in the Profile Section of User profile under My Profile tab. Profile password in addition to login ID and Password is required to access this section."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.10.2021. FAA's order dated 23.11.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/601807 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"1) Point No -1 - How my Email id changed on 30.11.2020 of my saving account? I did not received any OTP. I also not requested to Branch to change my Email id on 30.11.2020. SMS DLR report (Authenticate sign documents received from SBI is enclosed - From 29.11.2020 to 01.12.2020). Bank has given general statement that from my Net-Banking this mail id has been updated. SBI Email updation/Changing procedure says (Refer Page -1), Changes to Email address can be done through Customer, self approved using OTP sent to my Registered mobile number. But in SMS DLR report DTD 30.11.2020 (Enclosed Page no -2), from Bank side no any OTP delivered to me on my mobile number. Alert message & OTP message both are different message.
2) Point no -2- (Refer Page 4) - Login history of Dtd 01.12.2020, in which first login access time is 00.19.34 AM. This documents is given by Bank to me & Cyber police.
If first login time is 00.19.34 AM, then how before this time any unauthorised Transaction took place at time 00.12.47 AM? What is correct information?
63) Point no -3 - Till date Bank has informed to any customer or not (any source like SMS, Email, Social Media, Newspaper, Circular, Branch Manager etc....), that Customer can not change their own Email id through INB 20.12.2020? This feature has been removed from Bank side. Pls arrange proof in connection to this."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.10.2021 stating as under:
"Email ID change/update feature is available in the Profile Section of User profile under My Profile tab. Profile password in addition to login ID and Password is required to access this section."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.10.2021. FAA's order dated 23.11.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/602073 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2021 seeking the following information:
"Pls refer Page-4 (My SBI Net-banking Login access history for dta 30.11.2020 to 01.12.2020) - In which First login access of my Net-banking Time is showing as 00.19.34 AM for dtd 01.12.2020. Pls refer Page- 2 (SMS DLR report from 29.11.2020 to 01.12.2020) - In which First SMS received time is showing as 00.12.47 AM to 00.12.49 AM for dtd 01.12.2020. I want to know can a Bank delivers SMS to customer for dtd 01.12.2020 before Login access of Net-banking account? In which case a Bank deliveres such type of message? First my Net- banking will be accessed or First SMS will be delivered from Bank side?? Pls explain in details in which case Bank delivers SMS for transaction before Log in access?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.10.2021 stating as under:
"Please refer to our earlier reply sent to you on 03.09.2021 &25.10.2021 and many more."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.10.2021. FAA's order dated 23.11.2021, held as under:
"It has been observed that the appellant has sought response on an existing situation, which cannot be classified as information under section 2(f) of RTI Act. However, adequate information regarding his queries has already been provided 7 by the CPIO in response to his multiple RTIs hitherto. As such no infirmity has been found, hence no instruction is being passed in this matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/602073 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"Complain no- 177768/2021/Vigilance-3 Dtd 04.05.2021 (CVC /CVO Complain). SBI,ADB, BANKA ,BIHAR,PIN-813102,CODE-02230, Pls provide correct information against CVC/CVO complain. Complain- What is my OTP number pertains to my Email updation dtd 30.11.2020 ? Why did SBI Branch Manager changed my Email id of my saving account on dtd 30.11.2020? I did not receive any OTP and even SMS also for my Email updation. and i have not requested Branch to change my Email id. SBI Branch Manager blaiming me that i have changed my Email id through Net-banking on dtd 30.11.2020 (Refer SBI Email dtd 12.05.2021 - attached). SBI EMAIL updation approved procedure (Attached) - OTP is compulsory for change Email id through Net-banking from customer end. SBI SMS Delivery report of 30.11.2020 is also enclosed. In this delivery report of SMS, there is only One OTP pertains to new Nominee Registration has been delivered to me.
Apart from Nominee Registration, there is 3 Alert message for profile section accesses received. This does not mean that i have changed my Email id 3 Times on dtd 30.11.2020? From 2012-2021 (9 Yrs) - I have received 1000 times alert message for profile section accessed. It does not mean that i have changed my Email id 1000 times? Also Aler message for profile section accessed and OTP message both have different meaning and purpose. OTP message will come after profile section accessed Alert message. If SBI will show me SMS or OTP pertains to my Email update , i will accept my negligence. Pls reply against CVC complain, which is pending since more than 6 months & 11 days."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 04.12.2021 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI application received by us on 15.11.2021 we have to furnished that the information sought by you is hypothetical/grievances and does not falls under the purview of definition of information given under section 2(i) of RTI act 2005"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2021. FAA's order dated 03.01.2022, held as under:
8"It is observed that the information sought by the appellant has been furnished by the CPIO in reply to earlier RTI applications/communications and the CPIO has communicated the same to the appellant as also that grievance redressal does not fall within the preview of information under RTI Act. The appellant is advised that the provisions of the Act direct the CPIO to provide only such."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/603959 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"Part transferred under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the applicant."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 04.12.2021 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI application received by us on 29.11.2021 we have to furnished that. Please refer to our earlier reply provided you on multiple times."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2021. FAA's order dated 03.01.2022, held as under:
It is observed that appellant vide his online application dated 29.11.2021, which was submitted to Reserve Bank of India, had sought information related to change of Mail ID in Internet Banking. The application was transferred to State Bank of India under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, for disposal. In response the CPIO has informed that the information related to the queries has been furnished to the appellant multiple times.
The appellant is advised that the provisions of this Act direct the CPIO to provide only such information, which already exists, and in the form as held by the Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information, or to interpret information, or to furnish reply of hypothetical queries.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to a quote from Learned Information Commissioner Sri Shailesh Gandhi:
"The commission, at several appellate hearings, has explained to the complainant that under RTI Act, only the information as per records can be made available; multiple RTI applications and appeals would not provide him any information beyond the records that exists. The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondent-9
public authority as well as the commission is being spent in merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to obtain similar information.... At this juncture the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfil the demands of one individual..........
The commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the Commission, is wasting public resources." Furthermore, a reference may also be made to decision of Hon'ble Information Commissioner in Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Vs DTC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/ 001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Therefore, no instruction is being passed in the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/605869 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"1) Point no-1 - Who has changed my Email id dtd 30.11.2020 of my account due to which Unauthorized Transaction took place in my account dtd 01.12.2020. Who is involved in SBI for my corruption case.
2) Point no-2- Whether any action has been initiated against corruption case or not for the culprit person.
3) Point no-3- Why did SBI Changed my Email id without my Consent and knowledge.
4) Point no-4- For SBI Internal Problem why customer will suffer loss of 11 months and 22 days. What is SBI Compensation Plan.
Complete information against CVC complain is required."
10The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 28.12.2021 stating as under:
"point no 1 The information sought by you is hypothetical hence does not falls under the purview of definition of information given under section 2(i) of RTI act 2005.
POINT NO 2 Information is not available at our end.
point no 3 The information sought by you is hypothetical hence does not falls under the purview of definition of information given under section 2(i) of RTI Act 2005.
point no 4 The information sought by you is hypothetical hence does not falls under the purview of definition of information given under section 2(i) of RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2021. FAA's order dated 27.01.2022, held as under:
"Appellant vide his online RTI application dated 01.12.2021 had sought information related to change of mail ID in Internet Banking and seek explanation from CPIO. In response the CPIO has inform citing the sought information are hypothetical and does not falls under the preview of the definition of information under provisions of RTI ACT. The appellant is advised that the provisions of the Act direct the CPIO to provide only such information, which already exists, and in the form as held by the Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information, or to interpret information, or to furnish reply of hypothetical queries.
Further, it is observed that through his multiple applications/complaints the appellant has repeated the same quires and information has been provided by the CPIOs in the matter earlier.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to a quote from Learned Information Commissioner Sri Shailesh Gandhi:
"The commission, at several appellate hearings, has explained to the complainant that under RTI Act, only the information as per records can be 11 made available; multiple RTI applications and appeals would not provide him any information beyond the records that exists.
The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondent-public authority as well as the commission is being spent in merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to obtain similar information.... At this juncture the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfil the demands of one individual.........
The commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the Commission, is wasting public resources."
Furthermore, a reference may also be made to decision of Hon'ble Information Commissioner in Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Vs DTC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/ 001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Therefore, no instruction is being passed in the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/605884 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"RTI application transferred under section 6(3) of RTI act, 2005."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.12.2021 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI Application received by us on 04.12.2021 we have to furnish as under:12
Please refer to our earlier reply in this regard provided you on 23.10,25.10 any many more."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2021. FAA's order dated 27.01.2022, held as under:
"It is observed that appellant vide his online application dated 04.12.2021, which was submitted to Reserve Bank of India, had sought information related to change of Mail ID in Internet Banking. The application was transferred to State Bank of India under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, for disposal. In response the CPIO has informed that the information related to the queries has been furnished to the appellant multiple times.
The appellant is advised that the provisions of this Act direct the CPIO to provide only such information, which already exists, and in the form as held by the Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information, or to interpret information, or to furnish reply of hypothetical queries.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to a quote from Learned Information Commissioner Sri Shailesh Gandhi:
"The commission, at several appellate hearings, has explained to the complainant that under RTI Act, only the information as per records can be made available; multiple RTI applications and appeals would not provide him any information beyond the records that exists.
The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondent-public authority as well as the commission is being spent in merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to obtain similar information.... At this juncture the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfil the demands of one individual.........
The commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the Commission, is wasting public resources."
Furthermore, a reference may also be made to decision of Hon'ble Information Commissioner in Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Vs DTC case having file no.13
CIC/AD/A/2013/ 001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Therefore, no instruction is being passed in the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/608425 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"RTI application transferred under section 6(3) of RTI act, 2005."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 31.12.2021 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI Application received by us on 13.12.2021 we have to furnish as under:
The information seeking by you is not available at our end."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2021. FAA's order dated 27.01.2022, held as under:
"Appellant vide his online application dated 18.12.2021, which was submitted to Reserve Bank of India and transferred to SBI under section 6(3) of RTI act, had not sought any information rather he has raised his grievance regarding his previous Banking Ombudsman complaints, which is not covered under the definition of "Information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In view of the present appeal, it is observed that through his multiple earlier applications/complaints, the appellant has raised the same queries and information has already been provided by the CPIOs in the matter in his previous responses.
The appellant is advised that the provisions of this Act direct the CPIO to provide only such information, which already exists, and in the form as held by the Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information, or to interpret 14 information, or to furnish reply of hypothetical queries and to solve the problem raised by the applicant.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to a quote from Learned Information Commissioner Sri Shailesh Gandhi:
"The commission, at several appellate hearings, has explained to the complainant that under RTI Act, only the information as per records can be made available; multiple RTI applications and appeals would not provide him any information beyond the records that exists.
The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondent-public authority as well as the commission is being spent in merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to obtain similar information.... At this juncture the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfil the demands of one individual.........
The commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the Commission, is wasting public resources."
Furthermore, a reference may also be made to decision of Hon'ble Information Commissioner in Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Vs DTC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/ 001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
Therefore, no instruction is being passed in the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/608456 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.12.2021 seeking the following information:15
"I had asked this information through RTI of SBI Vigilance Mumbai Department whose RTI Number was- SBIND/R/E/21/02031 DTD 01.12.2021. But Vigilance CPIO transferred my RTI to PATNA/BHAGALPUR CPIO vide SBIPA/R/T/21/00183. If the Transferred RTI pertains to Vigilance does not come under purview of CPIO Patna/Bhagalpur and information is not available with you ,it should have been Transferred back my RTI to Vigilance CPIO . As per CVC office/department (Vigilance-3) , Information related to Vigilance Complain comes under RTI Act. Accordingly, it was asked from Vigilance Department of SBI.
Information Sought related to Vigilance Complain- Customer personal data (Change of Email dtd 30.11.2020) in Bank account can be changed either by Customer or SBI Branch. As per RTI SBI Mumbai corporate, SBI RTI Ahmedabad customer has not changed his OWN Email id dtd 30.11.2020 through Net banking (Letter copy of same enclosed). Then why SBI Bank without my consent changed my Email id.
1) REPLY NO- D&TB-JVC/RV/2021-22/175 DTD 17.11.2021 (Point -2).
ii) REPLY NO- D&TB-JVC/RV/2021-22/161 DTD 30.10.2021 (Point-1).
iii) Appellate authority RTI Reply - Ref SBIND/A/E/21/00485, DECISION NO-
09/2021-22 DTD 13.12.2021 (Point no-1) - Without OTP customer can not change OWN Email id dtd 30.11.2020.
iv) RTI Ahmedabad Reply - P&E/RTI/2021-22/1396 DTD 28.12.2021 Without OTP customer can not change his OWN Email id 30.11.2020 .
v) SBI Nodal office customer service Patna also agreed dtd 25.11.2021 that OTP was not sent to customer pertains to Email updation dtd 30.11.2020 from Bank side.
Then why SBI Bank changed my Email id without my consent . If Bank has not changed my Email id 30.11.2020 . Then it is case of contributory fraud/Bank Fault / Third party breach case. In this case customer liability is NIL . Accordingly Bank has to take suitable action as per RBI Guide line and circular - RBI/2017-18/15 DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 - dtd 06.07.2017 - Customer Protection - Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 31.12.2021 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI application received by us on 08.12.2021 we furnish as under The information seeking by you is not available at our end."16
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.01.2022. FAA's order dated 01.02.2022, held as under:
"It is observed that appellant vide his online application dated 08.12.2021, which was transferred under section 6(3) of RTI act to the present CPIO, had sought information related to his vigilance complaint. In response the CPIO has informed that the sought information is not available at their end. In the present appeal the appellant has reiterated his demand and raised his grievance regarding his previous queries/complaints. However, the available information related to the matter has already been provided multiple times by the CPIOs.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
However, the CPIO is instructed to seek the information from concerned department/ CPIO, and inform the appellant accordingly."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/627336 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly Provide complete Email changing procedure of Dtd 30.11.2020 (1.2 Years and 19 days before) against SBI Bank Customer service Nodal officer LHO Patna (AGM) through Net-Banking. How without OTP a customer can change his Own Email id through Net-Banking DTD 30.11.2020.
Information sought - Against SBI Bank Nodal Officer customer service replied of LHO Patna AGM DTD 25.11.2021. I need complete Email changing procedure without OTP through Net-Banking for sane date."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 16.03.2022 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI Application received by us on 15.02.2022 we furnish as under-17
Please refer to our earlier reply dated 20.05.2021, 15.06.2021, 13.08.2021, 26.10.2021 any many more, related to this matter."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2022. FAA's order dated 26.04.2022, held as under:
"The appellant vide his online application dated 09.03.2022, which was transferred under section 6(3) of RTI act to the present CPIO, had sought information related to his previous communications. In response pointwise information related to the queries has been provided by the CPIO vide letter no P&E/RTI/L603 dated 28.03.2022. Further, It is observed that the through his multiple applications/complaints appellant is repeatedly raising the same issue on which the CPIOs has already provided information/responded through his previous replies and the First Appellate Authority has also passed order in the matter.
In view of the above, kind consideration of the appellant may be drawn to the CVC circular No. 03.03.2017 dated 10.01.2017 and decision of Hon'ble CIC case having file no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, in which following observations were made:
i. "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. ii. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
The appellant is advised that the provisions of this Act direct the CPIO to provide only such information, which already exists, and in the form as held by the Public Authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act to create information, or to interpret information, or to furnish reply of hypothetical queries and to solve the problem raised by the applicant. Therefore, no instruction is being passed in the matter."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/641782 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"Pls refer LOKPAL OF INDIA letter no.-(C-12016/863/2022 -LOKPAL/659 DTD 12.03.2022 -ENCLOSED). This letter is directly addressed to Secretary, Department of Financial services from LOKPAL OF INDIA.18
Information Sought :- Kindly provide complete report, Action taken, Progress against the Order of LOKPAL OF INDIA from Department of Financial Services.
Various supporting documents already shared in my earlier RTI (DOFSR/R/E/22/00578, DOFSR/R/E/22/00083, DOFSR/R/T/22/00035 and DOFSR/R/T/22/00036)."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 23.06.2022 stating as under:
"The information sought by you is not available at RBO Bhagalpur level in any records/printouts/Floppy/tapes/video/cassettes/email etc form."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2022. FAA's order dated 14.07.2022, held as under:
"It has been observed that the appellant had sought information regarding letter no C-12016/863/2022-LOKPAL/659 dated 12.03.2022, originally addressed to The Secretary, DFS. Instead of providing sought information to the appellant, the concerned department has transferred his application to the CPIO, Bhagalpur, who in turn has informed about unavailability of sought information with him.
As such no infirmity has been found in the reply provided, therefore, no instruction is being passed to the CPIO in this matter."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Sumit Kumar, Representative of the Appellant present through Video-Conferencing.
Respondent: Shri Bhaskar Kumar, Chief Manager present through Video- Conferencing.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, has reiterated the contents of the RTI applications filed by the Appellant and submitted that the Respondent has not furnished complete and correct information as per the RTI applications and as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Representative of the Appellant has further raised the grievance that the e-mail ID of the Appellant in 19 the bank was changed without his knowledge and consent. He stated that complete and correct information should be provided to him.
The Respondent submitted that the complete factual information, as per the documents available on records and as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant on his above mentioned RTI applications. Further, the FAA had also upheld the replies given by the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the replies provided by the CPIO is bereft of merit as the above mentioned RTI Applications merely seeks for clarifications and answers to interrogative queries viz. "What is my OTP number pertains to my Email updation dtd 30.11.2020 ? Why did SBI Branch Manager changed my Email id of my saving account on dtd 30.11.2020? I did not recived any OTP and even SMS also for my Email updation . and i have not requested Branch to change my Email id; I want to know OTP number along with Proof , which is delivered from Bank side on my Mobile number pertains to Email updation DTD 30.11.2020 . etc."
It appears that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Despite this, the CPIO has provided a response to the Appellant; in the spirit of RTI Act.
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 20 matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld 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) 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 21 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 Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under: 0 "20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) 22 The Appellant is therefore, advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. Further, he is advised to approach appropriate forum in order to redress his grievance.
Since, the Appellant is filing numerous RTI applications based on his grievances, therefore, in the interest of justice, the Commission advise the Respondent to facilitate a meeting with the Appellant in their office on 12.06.2023 (Monday) at 11 am with respect to redressal of his grievance and ensure that his grievance should be redressed in a time bound manner.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 23 Sl. No. File Number 1 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/600564 2 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/600567 3 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/601612 4 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/601616 5 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/601795 6 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/601807 7 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/602073 8 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/602897 9 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/603959 10 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/605869 11 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/605884 12 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/608425 13 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/608456 14 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/627336 15 CIC/SBIND/A/2022/641782 24