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
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/BKOIN/C/2021/120133
Pooja V Shah ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 04.11.2020 FA : Nil Complaint : 25.05.2021
CPIO : 05.12.2020 FAO : Nil Hearing : 14.12.2023
Date of Decision: 15.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.11.2020 seeking the following information:
(i) "In BOI/RTI-38/BOI reply on RTI 33 bank just provided year 2016 for filing application before CMM court. So kindly provide the date & month also in 2016 when the above application was filed.
(ii) In para 3(iii) you have mentioned that Recovery suit was filed on 24.6.2016 before DRT-2. Provide the date when order on this suit filed on 24.6.2016 was passed. Also provide information on Appeal filed by the borrower & guarantor if any on this order like case no, date of filing of the Appeal & the date when final order was passed by the Appeal court. If the matter is still pending or decided before any judicial forum like High court etc, provide complete details of that too. Kindly also provide us the Page 1 of 7 links on which/where this housewife can read the orders passed on the above Recovery suit filed by all the courts in this regard. If matter is pending before any judicial forum, kindly provide full particulars about the same, thanks.
(iii) 8. In para 3(vi)( it should be (iv) & vi is a typographical error), you have mentioned that order of NCDRC dtd 14.7.17 was received by BOI but you were unable to give the date when this order was received by BOI as inward register was not maintained by the Bank where all inward DAK is entered by all other public authorities. Sir, u/s-
4(l)(d) of the RTI Act, every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decision. So kindly provide the reasons for not maintaining Inward Register.
(iv) 9. For our query in- para 11 of our RTI-33 about uploading of RTI applications & their response on your website, in para 3(vi) you have mentioned that you are not uploading RTI applications etc. In para 15 of our RTI-33 we had given details of the order passed by the Hon'ble CIC on 13.11.2019 i.e. almost a year ago directing BOI to upload the RTIs & response by BOI on their website So as detailed in para 8 above provide reasons u/s 4(1) (d) for disobeying the order of the Hon'ble CIC."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.12.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:
"i) Your RTI -33 received by branch on 20.07.2020.
ii) Date of Application to CMM Court is 05.03.2016.
iii) The Recovery suit filed on 24.06.2016 before DRT-2 under Case no 809/2016 Mumbai against the borrower and guarantor for recovery of banks' dues and there is no order passed by DRT-2 for taking possession of secured assets.
iv) Branch has started to maintain inward register wef 12.06.2019
v) Facts of the injunction order on your 2 flats was not informed to the DRT Court-2.
vi) Our bank has already uploaded the required information under section 4 of the RTI Act, which is available on our website.
Page 2 of 73. Aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the complainant filed instant complaint dated 25.05.2021.
Hearing on 01.12.2022
4. The complainant 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.
4.1. 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 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
5. The complainant'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. 5.1. 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 files of complainant/complainant to enable him to present the case properly. In Page 3 of 7 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
6. 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:
7. The complainant'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.
8. The Complainant's Advocate (assigned by Delhi State Legal Services Authority upon complainant's request) submitted that she had no instructions or communication from the complainant 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 complainant 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.
9. The respondent while defending their case submitted that they had provided point- wise reply to the complainant vide letter dated 05.12.2020. 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 Act. The CPIO pleaded that dealing with repetitive RTI applications caused disproportionate exhaustion of public resources.
10. 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 05.12.2020. Perusal of records reveal that the complainant had sought vague and indefinite information which was not maintained by the respondent authority. The Page 4 of 7 complainant had raised grievances through multiple RTI applications and sought redressal of the same under the guise of seeking information. 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 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:-
Page 5 of 7"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 a 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 complaint is rejected.
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 6 of 7
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 7 of 7