S. Ramalingam vs State Bank Of India on 28 February, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S. Ramalingam vs State Bank Of India on 28 February, 2022

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                            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/SBIND/A/2020/108685

Mr. S. Ramalingam                                      ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम
CPIO                                                   ...!ितवादी/Respondent
State Bank of India
P&E Department, Amaravati Local
Head Office, Gunfoundry Hyderabad
Telangana-500001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 11-06-2019           FA    : 08-07-2019         SA      : 20-02-2020

CPIO : 24-06-2019          FAO : 17-07-2019           Hearing : 24-02-2022

                                 ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Hyderabad, Telangana. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

Page 1 of 4

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 24-06-2019 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 08-07-2019 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 17- 07-2019 upheld CPIOs and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Gollamudi Srinivas, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The appellant submitted his written submissions dated 17.02.2022 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The appellant submitted that till date no information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 11.06.2019. The appellant submitted that the respondent public authority has not done suo-moto disclosure on their website as per Section 4 of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 4

6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 24.06.2019, they have informed the appellant that "The information sought by you is asking for reasons of doing/not doing of something and the same cannot be construed as information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence denied".

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that queries of the appellant are in the nature of seeking explanation, clarification, advice from the CPIO and the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.

8. The Commission further observes that an open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realized only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission would like to know the corrective measures adopted by the public authority for compliance of Section 4 of the RTI Act and what action has been taken against the officer for not complying the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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




                                                            नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                        Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                                सूचना आयु )
                                      Information Commissioner (सू

                                                          दनांक / Date : 24-02-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),(011-26105682)
                                                                          Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:
1.   CPIO
     State Bank of India
     P&E Department, Amaravati Local
     Head Office, Gunfoundry Hyderabad
     Telangana-500001

2.   Mr. S. Ramalingam




                                         Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission