K Narayanan vs Bank Of Baroda on 28 July, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

K Narayanan vs Bank Of Baroda on 28 July, 2022

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

(1)What are the benefits available to your bank pensioners from the above clause (2) Please provide an illustration for the benefits as in (1) above

2. No reply of CPIO is placed on record. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 10-07-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 06-08-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal Page 1 of 6 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.

CIC/BKOBD/A/2020/680911 Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

appeal:-

RTI : 02-06-2020           FA     : 04-07-2020         SA       : 07-08-2020
                                                                  07

CPIO : 02-07-2020          FAO : 31-07-2020            Hearing : 25-07-2022
                                                                 25

                                 ORDER

3. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Bank of Baroda, Baroda, Gujarat. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

under:

Page 2 of 6

4. The CPIO vide order dated 02-07-2020 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 filed first appeal dated 04-07-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 31-07-2020 upheld CPIOs reply 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:

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Surya Prasad, CPIO/ DGM attended the hearing through video- conferencing.

6. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 22.07.2022 and the same has been taken on record.

7. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his above RTI applications.

8. The respondent submitted that in file no. CIC/BKOBD/A/2020/680975, they have already provided a point-wise reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 09.07.2020. In response to point no. 1 of RTI Application, they have informed the appellant that the retirees between 01.04.1998 to 30.04.2005 were paid commuted value of pension (CVP) arrears plus 9 % interest as per Hon'ble Supreme Court orders duly applying the CVP factor as applicable to their next birthday without undergoing Medical checkup. He further submitted that in response to point no. 2 of RTI Application, they have informed the appellant that while implementing the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in DA Anomaly case for retirees between 01.04.1998 to 30.04.2005, 5002 surviving pensioners are paid with CVP (along with 9 % interest) to the tune of Rs. 28.58 crores.

9. The respondent submitted that in file no. CIC/BKOBD/A/2020/680911, vide their letter dated 02.07.2020, they have informed the appellant that the information sought from point nos. 1 to 4 of RTI Application are clarificatory in nature and does not come under the purview "information" as defined under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that the information sought at point no. 5 of RTI Application is not specific, hence cannot be provided.

Page 3 of 6

Decision:

10. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that in file no. CIC/BKOBD/A/2020/680975, the queries of the appellant are more in the nature of seeking clarifications/ explanations and not seeking any information which believes to be existing in material form as he is raising hypothetical query as to "what are the benefits arising out of this clause to the pensioners. Please explain the benefits with illustrations? Etc." The appellant has expected the CPIO to interpret his query and then provide information as required by him. But the CPIO is not supposed to give clarifications; to furnish answers to the questions under the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and only such reasons/opinions/advices can be provided to the applicants which are available on records of the public authority in material form. Nonetheless, the respondent has provided a categorical reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 09.07.2020 by going beyond the scope of the RTI Act.

11. Similarly, in file no. CIC/BKOBD/A/2020/680911, the information sought from point nos. 1 to 4 of RTI Application is clarificatory in nature and the information sought at point no. 5 of RTI Application is general/ wide/ non-

specific information as he is asking "all the communications/ guidelines issued to the respondent bank by the Indian Bank Association, which is the signatory to all settlements pertaining to the member banks, in respect of date of effect of reduction of commuted portion and enhanced commuted portion" etc. without being specific about the date of communication/ guidelines etc. 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 expect to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.

12. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:

"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 accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."

Page 4 of 6

In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:

35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant.

The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."

Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in KhanapuramGandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:

6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:

"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 accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."

7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the Page 5 of 6 petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."

13. In view of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent in the above RTI Applications is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, the replies given by the respondent in both the RTI Applications is in order and same is being upheld by the Commission.

14. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

15. With the above observations, both the appeals are disposed of.

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

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक / Date : 25-07-2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:

1. CPIO Bank of Baroda Head Office Operations & Services Department, Baroda Bhawan, 7th Floor, RC Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda, Gujarat-390007

2. Mr. K. Narayanan Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission