Central Information Commission
Pooja V Shah vs Bank Of India on 19 December, 2023
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/BKOIN/A/2021/114764
Pooja V Shah ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.07.2020 FA : 12.11.2020 SA : 05.04.2021
CPIO : 21.10.2020 FAO : 23.12.2020 Hearing : 14.12.2023
Date of Decision: 15.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2021 seeking the following information:-
(i) Certified copy of the above RTI-6 along with certified copy of the inward Register where its receipt was entered. Please see para below under Legal Explanation.
(ii) provide complete information on encashing of above Rs.10/- IPO into the bank account giving details on the record management system under which IPOs received are entered and accounted.Page 1 of 8
(iii) Date when reply to the above RTI-6 was posted along with certified copy of the postal receipt for having posted the above reply as well as the certified copy of the outward register where the reply posted was entered.
(iv) Provide information on the rules for taking action against those borrowers who make false representation/ suppress facts/misrepresent facts etc while applying for loan to the bank while mortgaging their properties and taking loan on such properties & subsequently such suppression/false representation/misrepresentation etc. is brought to the notice of the Bank about such fraud having been committed by the borrowers for getting loans from the bank
(v) Provide copy of the undertaking that Bank takes from the borrowers that the properties that the Borrowers are mortgaging to the bank are having clear titles, being free from any encumbrances. If there are any guidelines from RBI or any other organizations that banks usually follow, kindly provide their certified copies.
(vi) Complete information about putting the above sought information on the website of the bank as required u/s-4 (1) (b)of the RTI Act.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.10.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"(i) the certified copies of your own RTI-6 application, cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.,, Hence, the certified copies of your own said RTI application cannot be provided' Further, as far as the inward register is concerned, we have already advised that we are not maintaining any inward register at our branch.
(ii) The information sought is not falls under the definition of the, information, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.Page 2 of 8
(iii) The information sought pertains to your own RTI Application which is already replied and The information sought is not falls under the definition of the "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
(iv) The action against the borrowers for misrepresentation, fraud etc. is taken in accordance with the guidelines issues time to time by the RBI and DFs, MOF, the said information is also in public domain which is reasonably accessible to all.
(v) The undertaking and documents that submitted by the borrower while availing loan is exempted for providing as said documents falls under the exemption laid down u/s 8 (1) (d),(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, by virtue of the said provisions information cannot be parted with since the information are in nature of commercial confidence and the Bank is holding information available in its fiduciary relationship and also competent authority is satisfied that there is no larger public interest which warrants the disclosure of such information.
(vi) Please note that we are not uploading the information sought in RTI under reference on the website. However, the information which is required u/s-4(1) of the RTI act is being uploaded."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.11.2020 alleging that the reply given was false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2020 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Hearing on 01.12.2022
5. The Appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Prashant Kulkarni, Assistant General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 3 of 85.1. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 05.12.2022:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that during the course of hearing, the respondent submitted that subsequently they had provided an opportunity of inspection in response to point no. (iii) of RTI Application, but the applicant had not visited the office for inspection. In this regard, the Commission is of the view that since no documentary proof showing that the inspection of relevant records had been provided to the applicant, was placed on records, the Commission advised the respondent to upload copy of such communication on the portal of Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission observes that the applicant filed a letter before the Commission stating that she received appointment letter from Delhi State Legal Service Authority appointing Adv. Rashmi Maurya to represent the instant case. But, Adv. Rashmi Maurya neither appeared during the hearing nor filed any written submissions seeking exemption from personal appearance. In these circumstances, it is difficult to dispose of the instant matter; therefore, the Commission deems it fit to adjourn the present matter in the interest of justice. The registry of this bench is directed to issue fresh notice of hearing to both the parties concerned. The notice of hearing may also be served to the Counsel of applicant. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."
Hearing on 21.03.2023
6. The Appellant's advocate Ms. Rashmi Maurya attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conference. 6.1. The Commission passed the following directions on 05.04.2023:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that Shri Anup Kumar Sharma had recently joined the bank as CPIO and he was not aware of the complete facts of the case. Therefore, he sought some time to go through compete Page 4 of 8 files of Appellant/Appellant to enable him to present the case properly. In view of the principle of natural justice, the respondent is given a final opportunity to defend the case. Accordingly, the complaint is adjourned."
Hearing on 27.07.2023
7. The Commission passed the following directions on 25.10.2023:
"In this case, hearing had taken place on 27.07.2023. But due to administrative, technical reasons, the arguments could not be drawn conclusively to facilitate an equitable decision. Hence, it is decided to hear the case afresh and the case is accordingly adjourned."
Hearing on 14.12.2023:
8. The Appellant's advocate Ms. Rashmi Maurya attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.
9. The Appellant's Advocate (assigned by Delhi State Legal Services Authority upon Appellant's request) submitted that she had no instructions or communication from the Appellant regarding the cases listed for hearing before the Commission. She requested the Commission to take into consideration the contents and grounds raised in the complaint. Despite being given multiple opportunities, she reiterated that the Appellant had not contacted her and she was appearing before the Commission to represent Ms. Pooja V. Shah in pursuance to the information received from Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
10. The respondent while defending their case submitted that they had provided point- wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 21.10.2020. Besides, they had offered multiple inspections to the appellant with respect to the documents relation to her previous RTI application filed at their Branch Office on 16.12.2022, 29.03.2023 and 11.04.2023 and the appellant had also obtained certified copies of documents selected by her during the inspection. Besides, the complainant had initiated a second round of RTI applications from the issues arising out of the earlier applications under the guise of RTI Page 5 of 8 Act. The CPIO pleaded that dealing with repetitive RTI applications caused disproportionate exhaustion of public resources. Further, the appellant had raised the issue of delay in responding to the RTI application. They clarified that the delay caused in the matter was on account of COVID-19 restrictions and due to shortage of staff in their Branch.
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO on 21.10.2020. With respect to the delay caused in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO explained that the same was caused on account of COVID-19 restrictions and due to shortage of staff in their Branch. That being so, there appears to be no mala fide on the part of the CPIO. It may be noted that despite having received repetitive RTI applications, the CPIO/CPIOs have dealt with all the RTI applications in a categorical and timely manner which has resulted in exhaustion manpower and public resources. In that regard, the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, [(2011) 8 SCC 497] may be relied upon:-
".67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of 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 public authorities Page 6 of 8 prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The Commission takes a serious note of the fact that the complainant had sought copies of replies and communications given in response to her own RTI applications despite the onus of maintaining records with respect to one's own appeals/applications, being on her. In this regard, the observations made by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of High Court, Madras v. Central Information Commission, Writ Petition No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014, may be relied upon:-
"We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
In view of the above ratio, and in the absence of the complainant to plead her case or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent during the course of hearing were taken on record. The Commission also takes serious note of the absence of the complainant (Ms. Pooja V. Shah) despite notices having been duly served upon her for all the four hearings scheduled on 01.12.2022, 21.03.2023, 27.07.2023 and 14.12.2023. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 15.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 7 of 8
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Bank OF India RTI Cell, Legal
Department, 4th Floor, EAST
Wing, Star House, C-5,
G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051
2. The FAA
Bank OF India RTI Cell, Legal
Department, 4th Floor, EAST
Wing, Star House, C-5,
G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051
3. Adv. Rashmi Maurya
4. Ms Pooja V Shah,
Page 8 of 8