Choith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 27 July, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Choith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 27 July, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 05.03.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 22.01.2022 and first appeal dated 02.03.2022:-

(i) Provide duly attested copy of each such official document/official circular of the Baroda U. P. Bank HO by which on the record of then Bank Term Privilege Document of the Bank (for the purpose of Departmental Enquiry within the Bank) was officially defined and officially circulated among all the offices and branches of the Bank.

(ii) Provide duly attested copy of the complete list of all those official documents of the Baroda U. P. Bank, which as per the existing records of the Bank has already been declared as the privilege document of the Bank for the purpose of Page 1 of 4 departmental enquiry within the Bank and as per rule cannot be provided to any charge sheeted officer for his defense.

(iii) If as per the written official reporting of the concerned record keeper of the Head Office of the Bank, information requested by the RTI applicant on the point number (i) and (ii) of the RTI application, does not exist on the official record of the Bank, provide duly attested copy of such reporting given by the record keeper.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.01.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Baroda U.P. Bank, Gorakhpur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.02.2022 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.03.2022. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 01.04.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 05.03.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 05.03.2022 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.02.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) To (iii) "As per Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, as person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall specify the particulars of the information sought by him or her. Non-specific queries or clarification or interpretation of rules is outside the purview of the Act. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information.

As you have neither mentioned the details of desired documents i.e. letter no. with date nor the relevant circular no. with date, we are not able to provide you any information in this context."

Page 2 of 4

The FAA vide order dated 01.04.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajneesh Kumar Pandey, Chief Manager, Baroda U P Bank, Gorakhpur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already replied to the RTI application that information sought was not specific and it was in the form of clarification which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 18.02.2022. The information sought by the appellant was not specific and definite. It may not be out of place to mention that information sought was in the form of clarification which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The public authority was not under obligation to create the information for the appellant. In view of the above, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

                                                                             सुरेश चं ा)
                                                          (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 27.07.2023
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)




                                                                                  Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Baroda U.P.Bank
Buddh Vihar
Commercial Scheme,
New Shivpuri Colony,
Taramandal
Gorakhpur - 273016

The First Appellate Authority
Baroda U.P.Bank
Buddh Vihar
Commercial Scheme,
New Shivpuri Colony,
Taramandal
Gorakhpur - 273016

Shri Choith Ram Goklani




                                Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission