Central Information Commission
Rajesh Khanna vs State Bank Of India on 9 February, 2023
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
re iat ef ~ ; Beare PTAT AATT Central Information Commission . La mf, ATaT STAT ANT aT Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka we faeett, New Delhi -- 110067 radia afer eI/Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/202 1/648564 Mr. Rajesh Khanna ... SUPRA Appellant VERSUS ala The CPIO .. SEEATaT/Respondent State Bank of India RTI Cell, Rail Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi-1 10001 Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:- RTL 2 16-08-2021 FA: 12-09-2021 SA > 18-10-2021 CPIO : 02-09-2021 FAO : 11-10-2021 Hearing : 03-02-2023 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, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
1.
4.
aA Now many CCTVs were working in the year 2017(rom January to December, 2077} at customervfpublic space inside the Si Bank, Ral Bhawan Branch, Railway Board, New Delhi. Please provide the details & siatue of CCT Vs. How long does SBI bank, Ral Bhawan keep their footage of CCTV. Where is CCTV footage stored in SBI Dank, Rall Bhawan.
On which circumstances/conddion can demand the CCTV footage from 88! bank, Rai Bhawan and who is authonzed person to permit the same.
Whether any COTY footage of SB! Bank, Ral Bhawan was taken by any persorvofficiats period from January 2017 to May,2021. A copy af the correspondance done in this regard as well as the detherations done (inckaling fils noling} resulting in such please pradde, x pense tle
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 02-09-2021 had denied the information as sought at point no. 1,3,5 under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 and provided information on point no, 2,4 as sought in the RTI application. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant had filed first appeal dated 12-09-2021 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 11-10-2021 upheld CMIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission an 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 in person. The respondent, Ms. Deepa Singh, AGM & CPIO and Mr. Manish Kumar, AM attended the hearing in person.
4. The appellant has submitted his written submission vide letter dated 12.09.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
§, The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point no. 1,3, 4 and § given by the respondent. He averred that the withholding of information on the aforesaid points was not as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, therefore, requisite information should be given to him.
6. The respondent per contra submitted that vide their letter dated 02.09.2021, they have given a point-wise and proper reply to the appellant. They further submitted that the information desired at point no. 1,3, 4 and 5 was denied under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005. They further stated that ifthe details ofthe CCTV installed in the respondent authority are disclosed, it may cause infringement upon their safety protocols.
Decision:
7, The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and on perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought details pertaining to CCTV installed in the office of respondent authority. Keeping in mind the nature of functions performed by the respondent authority, the desired information is sensitive in nature and the disclosure is unwarranted. The Commission accepted the contention of the respondent that the disclosure in the present case may pose security risk and is also barred from disclosure under Section-8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Commission, the denial of information at point no. | and 3 is justified.
8. The Commission further opined that the queries of the appellant at point no. 4 and 5 are in the nature of seeking clarification or opinion. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information under Section 2({} of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
yon £ "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 aceessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
9, Furthermore, a reference was also made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (jj) ofthe RTT Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"() right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which ts held by or under ihe contral of any public authority and x4 includes o.....,
10. In view of the above legal provisions, the Commission opined that the queries of the appellant are not covered under the definition of information under section 2(f) of the RTE Act, 2005. In such cases, the CPIO is not under the obligation to provide any clarification or opinion under the RTI Act, 2008 as it is in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion of the CPIO. Therefore, information cannot be provided in point no. 4 and 5.
11. Nonetheless, the Commission observed that the reply provided by the respondent is point-wise and therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
y x N ro $ : Y :
3 2 oy ~ $3 e x a {Sins So Neeraj Kumar Gupta (WO? Pe Tay} information Commissioner (C44T ITH) feat / Date: 03-02-2023 Authenticated true copy + agape fom Cu = CATH SATS Geared ATE} S, C. Sharma (Ta. af. eh, Dy. Registrar (FI-THTR), (G11-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
iz The CPIO State Bank of India RTI Cell, Rail Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001
2. Mr. Rajesh Khanna