Central Information Commission
Choith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 14 February, 2023
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2021/648557
CIC/RUGBK/A/2021/648558
CIC/RUGBK/A/2021/648559
Choith Ram Goklani ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:Baroda U.P Bank,
Gorakhpur ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 26.08.2021 FA : 27.09.2021 SA : 14.10.2021
CPIO : 24.09.2021 FAO : 08.10.2021 Hearing : 16.12.2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(13.02.2023)
1. The issues raised in all the three appeals were identical. Therefore, it is felt desirable to pass common order in all the three appeals.
1.1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeals dated 14.10.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 26.08.2021 and first appeal dated 27.09.2021:-
I. Provide duly attested copy of the official document of the Bank, on the basis of which as per the record of the Bank, on 28/7/2021 CPIO of Head Office Sri R.K.Gupta had replied to the RTI applicant C.R.Goklani in the matter of his RTI application portal registration number BUPGB/R/E/21/251 dated 28/6/2021 that Page 1 of 4 " Maintenance of RTI Register is for personal use / convenience of the Bank and same is not meant for the use of applicant ".
II. Provide duly attested copy of all the record / documents / directives of the Bank which was relied upon by the CPIO of Head Office Sri R.K.Gupta before preparing the official reply in the matter of RTI application of C.R.Goklani portal registration number BUPGB/R/E/21/251 dated 28/6/2021 III. Provide duly attested copy of the official document / directive of the Bank, by which this was officially communicated / provided to the CPIO of Head Office Sri R.K.Gupta that " Maintenance of RTI Register by the Bank is for personal use / convenience of the Bank and same is not meant for the use of applicant ". IV. If any of the information as requested on the point number ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) s of this RTI application actually does not exist on the official records of the Bank, provide this information officially.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 26.08.2021 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 24.09.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 08.10.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 08.10.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeals dated 14.10.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeals dated 14.10.2021 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 24.09.2021 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"( i to iv)The desired information is in reference to your previously disposed RTI application and in the nature of questioning the action of concerned CPIO. As such, Page 2 of 4 the same does not fall within the definition of information under sec.2(f) of RTI act- 2005"
The FAA vide order dated 08.10.2021 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri D. S. Pandey, Chief Manager & CPIO, Baroda U.P. Bank, Gorakhpur attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided the requisite information till date of hearing.
5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought was in the nature of questioning the action of concerned CPIO, hence, the same did not fall within the definition of "information" under sec.2 (f) of RTI Act-2005.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant had been seeking the rule or document based on which the records, circulars, privileged documents, staff accountability report etc. were not provided to the appellant. The respondent in their reply denied the information inter-alia on the grounds that any specific queries or clarifications or interpretation of rules did not come under the purview of RTI Act. The Commission finds no infirmity in the order of CPIO or FAA. Moreover, the appellant in the guise of seeking RTI, had been seeking the basis on which his RTIs were rejected or the reasons why the Presenting Officer had presented certain privileged documents before the Enquiry Officer. Such reasons or basis for which the decisions were taken, do not fall within the definition of "information" under RTI Act. Accordingly, the appeals are 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: 13.02.2023
Page 3 of 4
Authenticated true copy
R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
Addresses of the parties:
THE CPIO :
Baroda UP Bank
Buddh Vihar
Commercial Scheme,
New Shivpuri Colony,
Taramandal,Gorakhpur-273016
THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
Baroda UP Bank
Buddh Vihar
Commercial Scheme,
New Shivpuri Colony,
Taramandal,Gorakhpur-273016
SH. CHOITH RAM GOKLANI
Page 4 of 4