Central Information Commission
Rajeev Agarwal vs State Bank Of India on 27 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/C/2022/625814 +
CIC/SBIND/C/2022/625382
Rajeev Agarwal ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
State Bank of India, RBO-
Allahabad-11, 10-C, Kutchery
Road, Prayagraj, U.P.-211002.
2. The CPIO,
Regional Manager, SBI,
Regional Business Office-2,
Kutchery Road, Prayagraj,U.P.-211002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 26/07/2023 Date of Decision : 26/07/2023 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Complaints have been clubbed together for decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications. Relevant facts emerging from complaint (s):
RTI applications filed on : 18/11/2021 & 17/11/2021 CPIO replied on : 16/12/2021 First appeals filed on : 14/01/2022 & 13/01/2022 First Appellate Authority orders : 01/02/2022 Complaints dated : 25/08/2022 & 24/08/2022 1 CIC/SBIND/C/2022/625814 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.11.2021 seeking the following information:
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 16.12.2021 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.01.2022. FAA's order dated 01.02.2022 held as under:
CIC/SBIND/C/2022/625382 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.11.2021 seeking the following information:2
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 16.12.2021 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2022. FAA's order dated 01.02.2022 held as under:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant set of Complaints.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Represented by Urvashi, C.M. (Operations) present through video- conference.
The written submissions in response to each instant case filed by the CPIO prior to hearing are taken on record.3
The sum and substance of the averred written submissions are reproduced below in verbatim -
"....reply was sent to the applicant dated 16.12.2021. A copy of the reply is enclosed for your ready reference.
3. From 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 alone, 37+ online and 18 + offline RTI requests have been raised by Shri Agarwal seeking information related M/s Deo Dutt Engg. The unit M/s Deo Dutt Engg. Works enjoyed credit facilities with State Bank of India. Credit facilities sanctioned to the unit turned sticky and to recover our dues, we moved to DRT where sales of the assets of the borrowing unit was awarded. To get our dues recovered, DRT awarded selling of assets of Deo Dutt Engg. Works to Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) Kotak Mahindra Bank. As per the agreement executed between Kotak Mahindra Bank (Assigner) and SBI (Assignor) on 29/03/2006, under noted was the terms of agreement Central Public Information Officer And Regional Manager "the Assignor Debts under the all Financial the Assignor's right, title, interest and benefit in and to the Debts and all the rights, title and interest of the whatsoever), or by way of Instruments (If any), whether by way of first or second charge, if any (in any form and in any manner and intent that the Assignee hypothecation hereafter or mortgage, or by way of absolute or pari passu charge, absolutely and forever to the end entitled shall be the full and absolute legal and beneficial owner thereof and legally and beneficially to demand, receive and recover the Debts in its own name and right."
4. As per information furnished above, our entire right over title, asset, debt etc was transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank..."
The Rep. of CPIO while summing up his arguments again emphasized on the fact that the Complainant being the Director of M/s Dev Dutt Engineering Works availed the credit facilities for the firm which was later declared as NPA and transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank (ARC) way back in 2006 as a sequel to the award proceedings of DRT . Now, since the records stand transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank (ARC), SBI has no dealings with the information sought; therefore, the Respondent is unable to provide any clarification/records sought by the 4 Complainant. Nonetheless, reply on each occasion has been provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
The instant Complaints of the Complainant have been heard together simultaneously along with a bunch of 12 more cases i.e. Second Appeals of the Complainant and the Commission at the outset based upon a perusal of facts on records and after hearing submissions of the CPIO at length is of the considered view that the Complainant has filed multiple RTI Applications of such multitude nature of information sought by repeating the nature of information sought merely to pressurize the Respondent public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information.
It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"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 corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting 5 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 prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
In view of the foregoing, the Complainant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further notes by closely scrutinizing the contents of RTI Applications that replies provided by the CPIO in response to clarificatory nature of queries which are outside the ambit of Section 2 (f) of RTI Act intimating the factual position of non-availability of records as the entire documents were transferred to the Kotak Mahindra Bank (ARC) in 2006, to the Complainant. The said replies are found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Moreover, the instant Complaints have no merits to initiate any penal action against the CPIO as it does not bear any malafides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without 6 reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
In view of the above and more particularly the absence of the Complainant during hearing to contest CPIO's submissions, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matters.
However, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of their latest written submissions filed in the above mentioned cases with the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7