Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 3 November, 2021
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/IDBIL/A/2019/652226
Samir Sardana ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: IDBI Bank Ltd.
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30.07.2019 FA : 07.09.2019 SA : 26.09.2019
CPIO : 27.08.2019 FAO : 19.09.2019 Hearing : 18.08.2021
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(01.11.2021)
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.09.2019 include the reliefs sought by the appellant in terms of his prayer as under:
(i) Impose Maximum Penalty, on the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Dismissal of the PIO (under the Ministry of Finance Rules and the Code of Conduct for Bank staff and other Officers laid down by the Ministry of Finance) for illegal and malafide action and also under the IDBI BANK Service Rules- which has several provisions for the same.
(iii) Administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO (under Section 20(2) , of the RTI Act,2005, ,and also under the IDBI BANK service rules- which has several provisions for the same.Page 1 of 25
(iv) Administrative action and/strictures, against the FAA for making a false, baseless, fraudulent and mala fide order.
(v) Recommendation to the Ministry of Finance for administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO and the FAA.
(vi) Direct the Respondents to refund the Application fee paid by Complainant while submitting RTI Application, as per section (7) (6) of the RTI Act.
(vii) Invoke its powers under the RTI Act to issue any other direction or recommendation as it may deem appropriate.
(viii) Direct the public authority to make entry in Service Book/ provisions Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the Respondents for defying the of the Act
(ix) Compensate the Appellant.
1.1 The appellant while challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority had brought out the following grounds:
The CPIO had provided partial information and rejected most of the information illegally under section 7 (9) and section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The respondent had fraudulently claimed that data was not available with the bank.
The respondent had rejected the vital information regarding loan disbursal/ NPA accounts.
Sample loan application and loan disbursal note was refused by the bank. The respondent had ignored the larger public interest involved in this matter and simply rejected the information.
The respondent had illegally rejected data on Tarun and Kishor loans although the Mudra loans were structured to capture the data sought. 1.2 The appellant through his RTI application dated 30.07.2019 and first appeal dated 07.09.2019 sought the following information:-Page 2 of 25
(i) NPAs • NPA in the 3 categories (Shishu, Kishor and Tarun) of Mudra loans o/s as at March 31, 2019, in terms of number and amount o PIO to confirm that the list of NPA Accounts by name and value and geography is available in electronic format • W.r.t. the above NPA loans in each of the 3 categories, the ageing in terms of the number of years for which the accounts are NPA (as at March 31, 2019) - by number and value o Less than 1 year o 1 - 2 years o 2-3 years o 3-4 years • W.r.t. the above NPA loans in each of the 3 categories, the nature for the accounts which are NPA (as at March 31, 2019) by number and value o Male and Female o Minorities and Non-Minorities o SC-ST and General o OBC and General • W.r.t. the above NPA loans (as at March 31, 2019) in each of the above said 3 categories, the ageing in terms of the number of years, from when the loan was "sanctioned" (as opposed to when the loan became an NPA in point 2 above) o FY 2015 o FY 2016 o FY 2017 o FY 2018 o FY 2019 • W.r.t. the above NPA loans (as at March 31, 2019) in each of the 3 categories, the state wise distribution of the NPA is sought for the Top 15 states by value and number of NPA accounts separately for the Bank Page 3 of 25 • W.r.t. the above NPA loans (as at March 31, 2019) in each of the 3 categories, the district wise distribution of the NPA is sought for the Top 15 districts by value and number of NPA accounts separately for the Bank • PIO to confirm that the eligibility condition for the Mudra loans excludes previous defaulters, from the bank within a particular time period or for a time period o In addition, if Yes, the PIO to provide the name of the technology system and platform used to verify and authenticate the same • PIO to confirm that the eligibility condition for the Mudra loans excludes previous borrowers of mudra loans from the bank within a particular time period or for a time period o In addition, If Yes, the PIO to provide the name of the technology system and platform used to verify and authenticate the same • PIO to confirm that the eligibility condition for the Mudra loans excludes previous borrowers of mudra loans from other banks within a particular time period or for a time period o In, addition, If Yes, the PIO to provide the name of the technology system and platform used to verify and authenticate the same • PIO to confirm that the eligibility condition for the Mudra loans excludes previous other borrowers of mudra loans from the bank with the same address as the proposed borrower, within a particular time period or for a time period o In addition, if yes, the PIO to provide the name of the technology system and platform used to verify and authenticate the same
(ii) Disbursals • PIO to provide the aggregate of the loan disbursals (on all India basis) in the 3 categories (Shishu, Kishor and Tarun) of Mudra loans for the last 4 financial years, in terms of number and amount • PIO to provide the aggregate of the loan disbursals (for the top 10 states by value and number of borrowers) in the 3 categories (Shishu, Kishor and Tarun) of Mudra loans for the last 4 financial years, in terms of number and amount Page 4 of 25 • PIO to provide the aggregate of the loan disbursals (for the top 20 districts by value and number of borrowers) in the 3 categories (Shishu, Kishor and Tarun) of Mudra loans for the last 3 financial years, in terms of number and amount • PIO to confirm that the disbursal of Shishu loans are made on outright basis or on re-imbursement node or direct payments to suppliers/vendors o If on outright basis, PIO to confirm that the borrower has to provide proof of expenditure on self attestation basis or on declaration and/or certification o PIO to provide the number of loan accounts for which the Bank has no proof of expenditure o PIO to provide the number of loan accounts for which the Bank has no self attested/certified proof of expenditure o PIO to provide the number of loan accounts for which the Bank has no 3rd party attested/certified proof of expenditure • PIO to confirm that the disbursal of Kishor loans are made on outright basis or on re-imbursement node or direct payments to suppliers/vendors o If on outright basis, PIO to confirm that the borrower has to provide proof of expenditure on self attestation basis or on declaration and/or certification o PIO to provide the number of loan accounts for which the bank has no proof of expenditure o PIO to provide the number of loan accounts for which the bank has no self attested/certified proof of expenditure o PIO to provide the number of loan accounts for which the bank has no 3rd party attested/certified proof of expenditure • PIO to confirm that the disbursal of Tarun loans are made on outright basis or on re-imbursement node or direct payments to suppliers/vendors o If on outright basis, PIO to confirm that the borrower has to provide proof of expenditure on self attestation basis or on declaration and/or certification Page 5 of 25 o PIO to provide the number of loan accounts for which the bank has no proof of expenditure o PIO to provide the number of loan accounts for which the bank has no self attested/certified proof of expenditure o PIO to provide the number of loan accounts for which the bank has no 3rd party attested/certified proof of expenditure
(iii) Tarun and Kishor Loans • W.r.t the Tarun and Kishor loans, separately, the PIO to provide the details of the number and value of loans o/s as at March 31, 2019, provided to 1st time entrepreneurs for each sector (as the sector of application of loan would be stated in the application form and the Project Report) • W.r.t the Tarun and Kishor loans, separately, the PIO to provide the details of the number and value of loans o/s as at March 31, 2019, provided to Existing Businesses of entrepreneurs for each sector (as the sector of application of loan would be stated in the application form and the Project Report) • W.r.t. the NPA accounts related to Tarun and Kishor loans, separately, the PIO to provide the details of the number and value of loans o/s as at March 31, 2019, provided to 1st time entrepreneurs • W.r.t. the NPA accounts related to Tarun and Kishor loans, separately, the PIO to provide the details of the number and value of loans o/s as at March 31, 2019, provided to the existing business of entrepreneurs • W.r.t. the Loan accounts related to Tarun and Kishor loans for 1st time entrepreneurs, separately, the PIO to provide the details of the number and value of loans O/s ,as at March 31, 2019, provided for the following purposes, as sanctioned and/or disbursed o Working Capital o Asset Creation o Operating Expense o Refinancing Interest o Marketing Expense Page 6 of 25 o Maintenance costs o Offset Losses and Write Offs • W.r.t the Loan accounts related to Tarun and Kishor loans for existing businesses of entrepreneurs, separately, the PIO to provide the details of the number and value of loans o/s as at March 31, 2019, provided for the following purposes, as sanctioned and/or disbursed o Working Capital o Asset Creation o Operating Expense o Refinancing Interest o Marketing Expense o Maintenance costs o Offset Losses and Write Offs
(iv) Proof of expenditure • PIO to confirm w.r.t the aggregate NPA loans o/s (by value) in each of the 3 loan categories (Shishu, Kishor and Tarun), as at March 31,2019, the following information o Value of disbursals for which there is no proof of expenditure at all o Value of disbursals for which there is proof of expenditure in terms of self certification only o Value of disbursals for which there is proof of expenditure in terms of 3rd party certification only o Value of disbursals for which there is proof of expenditure in terms of bills and invoices only
(v) Willful defaulters and suits filed or recovery initiated cases • PIO to provide w.r.t the aggregate MUDRA loans o/s (by value and number) in the 3 loan categories (Shishu, Kishor and Tarun),as at March 31, 2019, declared by the bank as willful defaulters Page 7 of 25 • PIO to provide w.r.t the aggregate MUDRA loans o/s (by value and number) in the 3 loan categories (Shishu, Kishor and Tarun), as at March 31, 2019, w.r.t which the bank has initiated recovery proceedings of any sort
(vi) Technology/ERP Platforms • W.r.t the MUDRA loan disbursals made by the Bank, the PIO is to confirm the following :
o That Each loan account is entered into the Bank's Databases and ERP with the name of borrower, address, type of loan and loan account number o PIO to provide a sample copy of the Data entry format used to make the loan disbursal entry into the Bank ERP and Bank IT Databases for each of the 3 Mudra loan types • W.r.t. the 3 types of Mudra Loans disbursed by the bank, the PIO is to provide the following data o A screen shot of 3 sample loan accounts of the 3 types of loan accounts as displayed in the loans or borrower module /section of the Banks ERP/IT databases/systems o If the bank so desires - it can blank out the names of the borrower and the address of the borrower as also the photos of the borrowers
(vii) Banks and 3rd party services • PIO to confirm that it provides assistance to MUDRA borrowers to fill in the application and prepare a Tentative or Detailed Project Report o If Yes, the PIO to provide 3 sample application forms and 3 Tentative Project Reports which the bank assisted the MUDRA borrowers to prepare in the 3 types of MUDRA loans • PIO to confirm the number and value of MUDRA loans disbursed (in the last 4 years in the aggregate) for cases wherein the MUDRA borrowers used NGOs and other agencies to prepare the application form and the Page 8 of 25 Tentative or Detailed Project Report, as also, to complete other formalities with the bank, for the sanction and disbursal of the MUDRA loan o PIO to provide 3 sample application forms and 3 Tentative Project Reports which the said NGOs and other agencies, assisted the MUDRA borrowers to prepare, in the 3 types of MUDRA loans
(viii) Repeat borrowers • PIO to confirm w.r.t the aggregate loans o/s (by value) in the 3 loan categories(Shishu, Kishor and Tarun),as at March 31, 2019, the following information o Number and value of loans to repeat borrowers who made no loan defaults o Number and value of loans to repeat borrowers who made some loan defaults
(ix) Procedures • PIO to provide the loan application form and Project Report format and disbursal guidelines w.r.t the Shishu, Tarun and Kishor loans - and direct the applicant if the said information is available on an authentic mode, on a GOI portal on the web
(x) Statistics • PIO to confirm that it has information w.r.t the aggregate number of MUDRA enterprise units in operation in various districts of India, as at March 31, 2019, even on a deductive basis (id.est., assuming that the Non-
NPAs are operational enterprise units)
(xi) Audits and inspections • PIO to confirm that the Bank has carried out or funded the audit of the sanctions and disbursals of MUDRA loans by the Bank , at any time in the last 5 years o If Yes, the nature, year, scope of audit and name of audit agency o If Yes, the PIO to confirm that it has a copy of the said audit reports and that they are in eformat Page 9 of 25 o If Not, the bank to provide the name of the Public Authority which has the information w.r.t the said audit, if any, carried out • PIO to confirm that the CAG has carried out the audit of the sanctions and disbursals of MUDRA loans by the Bank, at any time in the last 5 years o If Yes, the nature, year, scope of audit and name of audit agency o If Yes, the PIO to confirm that the Bank has a copy of the said audit reports and that they are in e-format • PIO to confirm that the Bank or the disbursing bankers have used any agency or statistician to ascertain the end use of the Mudra loans in any geography in the last 5 years o If Yes, the nature, year, scope of assignment and name of agency o If Yes, the PIO to confirm that it has a copy of the said analytical or statistical reports and that they are in e-format o If Not, the Bank to provide the name of the Public Authority which has the information w.r.t the said analysis, if any, carried out
(xii) Credit insurance • PIO to confirm the aggregate credit insurance cover taken by the Bank w.r.t the o/s MUDRA loans as at March 31, 2019
(xiii) Case studies and sample credit cases • PIO to confirm that the Bank has made case studies on varied enterprise business models for each district or other geography of India, along with tie ups with suppliers, vendors, training companies and video and audio kits for the same o If Yes, PIO to confirm that all the said data is in e-format o If Yes, PIO to confirm that all the said data is available on the web on an authenticated source of the GOI.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 30.07.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Ltd., Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.08.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied Page 10 of 25 with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 07.09.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.09.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 26.09.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 26.09.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to impose Maximum Penalty on the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, dismiss the PIO for illegal and mala fide action and also under the IDBI Bank Service Rule, take administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO/FAA under Section 20 (2) of the RTI Act; recommendation to the Ministry of Finance for administrative action and/strictures against the PIO and the FAA; direct the respondents to refund the application fee paid by Complainant while submitting RTI Application as per section (7)(6) of the RTI Act.
4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.08.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-
NPA under 3 categories as on 31 March, 2019:
Sr. No. Category Number of Accounts Gross NPA Amount (Rs. Crore)
1. Shishu 12767 5.64
2. Kishor 9136 76.48
3. Tarun 2925 98.86 Total 24828 180.98 Disbursement in three categories under PMMY:
Financial Shishu Kishor Tarun Total
Year
No. Amt No. Amt No. Amt No. Amt(Rs.
A/cs A/cs A/cs A/cs Crore)
Page 11 of 25
2015-16 131168 288 27741 702 8955 698 167864 1688
2016-17 192503 478 61940 1462 17237 1321 271680 3261
2017-18 162960 458 78209 1803 23347 1801 264516 4063
2018-19 119474 368 84804 1998 30144 2353 234422 4720
Further, information sought would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority for compilation/collating the data, hence, it is exempted from disclosure under Section 7(a) of the RTI Act. It is also observed that the question are hypothetical and in the nature of obtaining clarification/explanation of the bank which cannot be construed as "information" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act".
The FAA vide order dated 19.09.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Hemlata Prabhu, Dy. General Manager & CPIO, IDBI Bank Ltd., Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had provided the aggregate of loans disbursed and aggregate Mudra NPAs for the 3 categories and rejected rest of the information under section 7 (9) and section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. However, they failed to provide specific point-wise reply. He argued that the respondent had not provided specific reasons or rationale while refusing the information. The information had been sought through e-format or can be accessed in a few minutes on a CD and it would not divert resources. The data relating to NPA was collated and submitted to Ministry of Finance in various formats and frequencies, therefore, it was not cumbersome as claimed by the respondent. The appellant further contended that the information was sought in the interest of transparency, accountability and larger public interest. Therefore, he requested that his appeal may be allowed in terms of prayer.
5.1.2 The appellant apart from seeking information as per the RTI application had sought imposition of maximum penalty; dismissal of the PIO; Administrative action and strictures against the PIO and FAA; recommendation to the Ministry of Finance for Page 12 of 25 administrative action/strictures against the PIO and the FAA; refund the application fee; and compensate the appellant. The imposition of penalty and strictures would have arisen if the information was denied by the respondent with mala fide.
5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed the CPIO's reply dated 27.08.2019 and FAA's order dated 19.09.2019. The respondent further submitted that the collection of the information would divert the resources of the banks and also in view of the voluminous nature of the information they had sought the exemption that the information was not readily available with the bank and culling out of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, hence, exempted under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. They further contended that the appellant in most of his points had either requested for confirmation of certain facts mentioned by him in his application, or had asked the bank for identification of fraud cases from the NPA cases, etc. The request in nature of confirmation, identification, or clarification were not covered under the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, no record or material being maintained in the form that could address the queries in the nature of seeking confirmation or clarification, the same could not be furnished to the appellant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, noted that the respondent replied to the RTI application dated 30.07.2019 on 27.08.2019. Before dwelling upon the complaint some of the relevant cases may be discussed.
6.1. In Mr. K.S. Vasudevan vs Ministry of Law and Justice [CIC/SS/A/2011/000828], the appellant filed RTI application dated 04.09.2010 seeking the following information:
"1(a) Whether it is mandatory and compulsory to continue the proceedings initiated by the Department when the criminal case is pending before any court of law against those officers;
1(b) Whether the judgments cited are binding on the Department or not; 2(i) If yes, then whether instructions have been issued by the Law Ministry to other Departments for keeping such cases in abeyance or not; and Page 13 of 25 2(ii) If not please cite the rules under which the Departmental proceedings can be conducted over-riding the above judgments."
The Commission while disposing of the second appeal vide its decision dated 09.09.2011 made the following observations:
"4. After hearing the respondent and on perusal of relevant documents, the Commission observes that the appellant sought legal opinion from respondent; the same is not covered within the ambit of the definition of 'information' as laid down in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the replies of respondent."
6.2. In Sarojini Devi vs Life Insurance Corporation of India [CIC/LICOI/A/2017/1769933-BJ], the appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2017 seeking information on 05 points regarding the modified policy and practice of LIC in view of the Supreme Court Judgment which had held in 2014 that no Government Department/ Government Corporation will apply Public Premises Act (PP Act) to protected tenants who were in possession of the premises before 1958, list of cases under trial by LIC Estate Officer under PP Act which had been discharged/ cancelled by LIC and premises returned to rightful protected tenant in light of the above mentioned Supreme Court Judgment, etc. The Commission vide its decision dated 05.04.2019 while disposing of the second appeal and while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (decided on January 4, 2010) made the following observations.
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
Page 14 of 257. "....the 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."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."
6.3. In Smt. Sakshi Sunil Shelke vs. CPIO, Indian Navy, [CIC/RM/A/2014/001665], the appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2014 seeking information regarding the number of applications received for the post of Assistant Store Keeper; whether scrutiny of applications was done by the respondents or by a private firm; if private firm had done the above job, then name of the firm employed for this purpose, copy of the work order and copy of approval of the competent authority for delegating this work to a private firm, etc. The Commission while allowing the appeal passed the following directions vide its decision dated 19.08.2016:
"Be that as it may, the CPIO is directed to provide to the appellant point wise complete information within 21 days from the date of receipt of the order."
6.4. In Niraj Kumar vs. CPIO, Staff Selection Commission [CIC/SM/A/2013/000444], the appellant filed an RTI application who was a candidate in the combined graduate- level examination 2011 and had sought information regarding cancellation of his candidature and that he was debarred from appearing in an examination for five years; various details to find out the reasons why the SSC took such a decision against him. The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following directions vide its decision dated 07.08.2013:
Page 15 of 25"5.We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made during thehearing. We find it difficult to accept the explanation given by the CPIO. After all, some authority in the SSC had decided on the action taken against the Appellant and, may be, some others on the charge of adopting malpractice in the examination. The candidate has every right to know about the reasons for taking such drastic decision against him. Besides, this matter is now more than two years old and the enquiry cannot go on indefinitely. It is, therefore, necessary that the Appellant is informed about the reasons for such a decision, as recorded in file. We direct the CPIO to access this information, namely, the photocopy of the relevant file noting and other records from the file in which the decision had been taken to cancel his candidature and debar him from future examinations for a period of five years, from the SSC headquarters and provide to the Appellant within 15 working days of receiving this order."
6.5. In Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao vs. CPIO, Andhra Bank [CIC/SG/A/2012/001449], the RTI appellant filed an application dated 04.11.2011 seeking the following information:
"1.Does it not expedient for the bank authorities concerned to verify and ensure that everything is in the points after the customer leaves the locker room?
2. In the period 1-10-11 to 28-10-2011 no efforts to have been evinced to notice the fact of tempering of the locker. Can the reasons for this lapse on the part of the concerned authorities be permissible as per bank's statutory rules?
3. Does it not require causing an immaculate intensive check of all the locking devices and ensuring safety in a foolproof manner by the Banking officials concerned just before they leave precincts of the Bank each day?
4. Are there any specific rules allowing the bank authorities to engage an unauthorized mechanic for the purpose?
5. Had there been strict surveillance of the bank officials concern throughout the operation or this repaired word?Page 16 of 25
6. Are there any rules under Bank's Statute to allow a private person in the locker room without the surveillance of the bank officials?"
The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following directions vide its decision dated 27.06.2012:
"The Appeal is partially allowed. The PIO is directed to provide an attested copy of the Manual/Rules as directed above to the Appellant before 15 July 2012."
6.6. In Shri Fasih Akhtar vs. CPIO, Prime Minister's Office [CIC/CC/A/2015/002259], the appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2014 seeking information on four points:
"(i) date of receipt of letter which was sent to the Prime Minister's Office;
(ii) what action has been taken by the PMO on his representation dt. 8-9-2014 relating to prohibition of cow slaughtering;
(iii) what is the reason why the Prime Minister did not convey congratulations on the occasion of Eid Day to the Muslim community; and
(iv) it is against the Constitutional Rights that on the occasion of Hindu festivals Prime Minister conveys congratulations but on the festive occasion of Muslim he does not."
The Commission while disposing of the appeal (vide its decision dated 30.08.2016) while disposing of the appeal held:
"The Commission's intervention is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of"
6.7. In Govind Mittal vs. CPIO, National Highway Authority of India, Faridabad [CIC/SS/A/2012/003439] the appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.07.2010 seeking information on 3 points:
"(1) provide information that on how much distance should he construct the boundary of his HouseKothi No: 69 which is situated at Gandhi Nagar, Agra, U.P near to Highway no: 2 because at present he permission to construct boundary of his house at 82 feet away from the main Road of the Highway no. 2 from NHAI.Page 17 of 25
(2) At what rate compensation will be given for the acquired land by the NHAI?
(3) Provide information on what distance should he construct the main building of his House?"
The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following decision dated 29.08.2013:
"The Commission observes that the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI application are more in the nature of seeking advice and clarification whereas under
the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 only information as is held by the Respondent in material form can be provided. The Respondent are not expected to create information or to give advise. The information sought by the Appellant therefore does not qualify as information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
6.8. In Kothandaraman Venkataraman vs. CPIO, Bank of India [CIC/BKOIN/A/2017/166537], the appellant filed RTI application dated 17.07.2017 seeking the following information:
(i) "Confirmation from telephone service provider for messages delivered from this ATM-TCE9038/ triggered by this ATM for my attempted withdrawal transaction no.
348748 on 8.9.16 and any other sms sent to my phone by your service provider for this transaction the same day.
(ii) name of telephone service provider for cross verification print out.
(iii) Appellant want the calibrated maximum delivery in Rupees machine-TCE9038 can deliver per withdrawal transaction, this when was last calibrated before 8.9.16 date and value. It can be 15000 or 10000 only.
(iv) inspecting this record wherever it is recorded / registered must be in Chennai."
The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following decision dated 09.04.2019:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that there is no danger to life of any individual as claimed by the respondent under section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act in Page 18 of 25 providing information. The information may be supplied within 15 days from the date of issue of this order."
6.9. In Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury vs. CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank [CIC/PASBK/A/2019/123506], the appellant filed RTI application seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide the following information with respect to administrative control of Zonal Office, Bareilly:
(i) Number of employees, cadre wise& year-wise, who have been placed under Suspension, since 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.
(ii) Total remuneration, cadre-wise & year-wise, paid to suspended employees since 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.
(iii) Certified copies of the rules relied by the bank for review of suspension between 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.
(iv) Name & designation of officials who were members of the Review Committee for Suspension during the period 01.01.2013 to date of providing information." The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following directions vide order dated 20.09.2021:
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and requisite information in response to point nos. (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application had not been provided so far. The stipulated time for transferring the RTI application to the concerned Branch having elapsed, it was the responsibility of the respondent to obtain the same and provide it to the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent is directed that information in respect to point nos. (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application be made available to the appellant along with uploading the same under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act on their web portal within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of."
6.10. Definition of Information under RTI Act, 2005 6.10.1 "Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines 'Information' as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, email, opinion, contract report logbooks, samples, Page 19 of 25 models 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".
Further, Section 2 (i) defines the term "record" which includes:
a) document, manuscript and file
b) microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document
c) reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
d) other material produced by a computer or any other device RTI Act provides that only such information is required to be supplied under the Act, which already exists in material form and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. According to the Act, the public information officer is not to generate or interpret information, nor is he or she to solve problems raised by applicants or to respond to hypothetical questions.
Further, the term "held by or under the control of public authority" in section 2(j) of RTI Act has to be reads in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the term "information" as defined in section 2(f).
6.10.2 The definition of "right to information" as given under section 2(j) in the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a)....
.
.
(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
Page 20 of 25(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;"
6.10.3 In Institute of chartered accountant of India V. Shahunak H. Satya and ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7571 of 2011] the Supreme Court laid down the following observations:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make distinction regarding information intended to bring transparency to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under section 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 government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
6.10.4 In Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [2011 (8) SCALE 645] the Supreme Court laid down the following observations:
"The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.
.
.Page 21 of 25
"....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......."
6.10.5 In Khanapuram Gandaiah V Administrative Officer & Ors. [S.L.P. (Civil) 34868 of 2009], the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2010 laid down the following observations:
"This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion."
6.10.6 In case of A.K. Vasudev V. CPIO, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi, it was held that respondent is seeking answers to his questions, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission refers to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto V. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) wherein it was held as follows: "The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public Page 22 of 25 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. Justification are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
6.10.7 In case of Poorna Prajna High School V. Central Information Commission it was held that it is mandatory for public authorities to disseminate information that is accessible to them. As a result, information that a public body has access to is deemed information under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Here public authority is referred to as the framework or the body under which the institution is governed.
6.10.8 In case of Reserve Bank of India V. Jayantilal Mistry the Court briefly analysed section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines information to include "... information relating to any private body which can accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force." Using this inclusive definition, the Court held that, even if a fiduciary relationship existed between the RBI and other banks, section 2(f) would render them accessible to the public."
6.10.9 As per the RTI rules 2012, an application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant. Perusal of the application reveals that the RTI application filed by the complainant has around 1800 words.
6.11 The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case hearing both the parties and perusal of records observed that material information available with the bank had already been provided to the appellant in tabulated form vide letter dated on 27.08.2019. Perusal of the RTI application against which the appellant in his RTI application sought details of NPA in three categories (Shishu, Kishor and Tarun) of Mudra loans, disbursal, willful defaulters, recovery process, EPR Platforms, repeat borrowers, audits, inspections and credit insurance etc. Perusal further reveals that in Page 23 of 25 most of the cases, the appellant has not sought any material information (document) or copy of the order instead he has sought confirmation, analytics, details of processes etc. The appellant requested for confirmation of certain facts mentioned by him in his RTI application, or had asked the bank for identification of fraud cases from the NPA cases, etc. The request in nature of confirmation, identification, or clarification were not covered under the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Thus he has not sought records or documents which were available in material form in the custody of the public authority. Besides it is also noted that the appellant has sought voluminous information on different subjects. The arguments of the appellant with reference to unreasoned orders of the respondent, non-applicability of provisions of Section 7(9) and 2(f) of the RTI Act, and the information could have been collated on the basis of reports sent to Reserve Bank of India/Ministry of Finance and that disclosure was in the interest of transparency/accountability and larger public interest. Thus the appellant has presumed that authorities should have collated, collected or created the information as per his format. It is evident from the reply of the respondent that they have provided point-wise reply/information and wherever they felt have claimed exemption under provisions of the RTI Act.
6.12 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay in Civil Appeal No. 6454 Of 2011 has made the following observations:-
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 Page 24 of 25 corruption) would be counter-productive as it 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.
6.13. In view of the above, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter as there is no substance in the appeal calling for intervention by the Commission.
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: 01.11.2021
Authenticated true copy
R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
Addresses of the parties:
CPIO:
IDBI BANK LTD.
IDBI TOWER,
W.T.C COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE,
MUMBAI - 400 005
THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
IDBI BANK LTD., IDBI TOWER,
W.T.C COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE,
MUMBAI - 400 005
SH. SAMIR SARDANA
Page 25 of 25